United Kingdom Ombudsman Network
 

Welcome

 
 

HOME Financial Ombuds Gov't & Health
 

The UK Ombudsman Network:  public advocacy, mediation, investigation, and dispute resolution.
Parliamentary & Health Services Ombudsman
The Financial Service Ombudsman
Legal Services Ombudsman
Housing Ombudsman Service
British & Irish Ombudsman Association
Commissioner for Public Appointments

Guaranteeing citizens fair and equitable treatment under the law has been at issue for as long as government has existed. The Ombudsman Office performs important roles  in government, health care and commerce, including advocacy, investigation, education, receiving and resolving complaints.  In the United Kingdom, Ombudsman agencies assist citizens, consumers, and employees with health care issues, commercial transactions and governmental actions.

The handling of all commercial and financial service complaints has been consolidated into the Financial Ombudsman Service.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman investigates complaints (only if referred by an MP) about treatment by government departments or other public sector bodies, from members of the public in England, Scotland and Wales. The Parliamentary Ombudsman also handles complaints about the refusal of access to information by those departments or bodies under the Code of Practice on Government Information.

Ombudsman offices attempt to provide a neutral, confidential, and "safe" place to discuss concerns and voice complaints.

The Ombudsman collects and evaluates facts regarding a matter as a neutral investigator, suggests alternatives as necessary, and works to ensure matters are resolved equitably. The Ombudsman determines if there was an error, unfairness or harm by the agency involved, or not.  The Ombudsman may make recommendations to resolve wrongs done to individuals and to improve government administration. If its recommendations are not accepted and good reasons are not given, the Ombudsman may then become an advocate for their implementation.

The British and Irish Ombudsman Association website has an index of complaint handling institutions or Ombudsman Schemes for:  Building Society; Estate Agents; Funeral Services; Financial Services; Health Services; Housing; Legal Services; Local Governments; Northern Ireland; Northern Ireland Police; Pensions; Police Complaints Authority; Independent Complaints Reviewer (Land Registry, Public Record Office and Charity Commission); Lay Observer for Northern Ireland; Office for the Supervision of Solicitors; Prisons and Probation; Subsidence Adviser; Waterways

The Government and Healthcare Ombudsman page contains links to government ombudsman websites, and outlines the duties and roles of government ombudsman institutions.

The Financial Ombudsman page contains information about the government's Financial Ombudsman Service, along with a link to their website. Many inquiries to Ombudsman Net involve financial matters, which can often be resolved with assistance from the Financial Ombudsman Service.
Local Government Ombudsman
Pensions Ombudsman
Office of the Telecommunications Ombudsman
Police Complaints Commission
Ombudsman for Estate Agents Scheme
Government Watchdogs & Ombudsmen
  •  >07/09  Press Complaints Commission Orders Sunday Times to Remove MMR Journalist’s Stories on Dr. Wakefield from Paper’s Web Site

    Work by Reporter Brian Deer is at Center of Investigation Being Conducted by Medical Regulators

    (Austin, Texas) – The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) of London, an independent body that oversees journalism fairness in the UK, has issued an interim order calling for the Sunday Times to remove stories written by Brian Deer about Dr. Andrew Wakefield from its web site.  Dr. Wakefield had filed an extensive complaint with the PCC regarding errors of fact in Deer’s reportage on the MMR vaccine and its possible relationship to autism.  The General Medical Council (GMC) in the UK is presently hearing evidence involving Dr. Wakefield and two of his colleagues following a complaint to the GMC by Deer himself. The PCC decision today appears to indicate there are questions about the accuracy of the Deer stories.

    The PCC complaint by Dr. Wakefield provides clear evidence that Deer’s allegations of “data fixing” by him are false. The complaint also accused Deer of an undisclosed conflict of interest since Deer also failed to reveal in his articles that he was the person who made the original complaint to the GMC, misleading the newspaper’s readers over the accuracy of his reporting.

    “Given the ongoing nature of the dispute,” Stephen Abell of the PCC wrote, “the articles should be removed from the newspaper’s website until this matter has been concluded.  This would not be an admission of any liability on the part of the newspaper.”

    Although media are expected to respond promptly to complaints through an informal process, the Sunday Times took more than three months to answer detailed issues raised by Dr. Wakefield, and called upon legal representation to write the paper’s response. Despite this the paper’s management have failed to produce any evidence of “data fixing” by Dr. Wakefield. In its letter to Dr. Wakefield regarding his complaint against Deer, the PCC “expressed concern at the initial slowness of the newspaper’s response.”  The PCC said it delayed a complete ruling until it has a fuller accounting of all information submitted to the GMC, but that the outcome of the GMC hearing is not relevant to a final decision by the PCC.  

    “My contention has always been,” Dr. Wakefield explained, “And it always will be that journalism, before it is published, must stand on its merits with good documentation, sources, and corroboration. Deer’s stories fail on every count.  I see no connection between the GMC’s hearing and a decision by the PCC.  If the Sunday Times cannot defend the information today, which it can’t, then it was unable to do so at the time of publication.”

    Wakefield has been one of the subjects of the longest GMC hearing in history.  Although the hearing was expected to be concluded in August 2009, information from attorneys involved in presenting evidence indicate the case is not likely to be decided upon by the panel until December and may not conclude until early 2010.  

    About Thoughtful House: Thoughtful House advocates a multi-disciplinary treatment approach to treating autism and supports a 'safety-first' vaccination policy. The research program at Thoughtful House is dedicated to understanding the biological origins of childhood developmental disorders and establishing best practices in treating children affected by these disorders. www.thoughtfulhouse.org> 2/08 Autism Omnibus Proceedings -- Government concedes vaccine-autism link.  David Kirby.

> 2/08  After years of insisting there is no evidence to link vaccines with the onset of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the US government has quietly conceded a vaccine-autism case in the Court of Federal Claims.

The unprecedented concession was filed on November 9, and sealed to protect the plaintiff's identify. It was obtained through individuals unrelated to the case.

The claim, one of 4,900 autism cases currently pending in Federal "Vaccine Court," was conceded by US Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler and other Justice Department officials, on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, the "defendant" in all Vaccine Court cases.

> 7/04
MMR - Triple Trouble -- From Private Eye

The 300 families seeking to sue manufacturers of the MMR vaccine over a range of disabling conditions other than autism - they include epilepsy, encephalitis, the paralysing Guillian-Barre syndrome and childhood arthritis - have, like other MMR parents, been thwarted by having their legal aid cancelled.
Even though some of the conditions complained of are acknowledged as rare side-effects of the vaccine, and others were associated with an early MMR vaccine that was withdrawn in 1992 by the government because it caused mumps-meningitis, it seems the legal services commission (LSC) has made a generalised ruling not to continue to support any of these cases either.
Each family has responded in detail to the LSC's requests to "show cause" why their child's case should continue, but their legal aid certificates were nevertheless cancelled at the end of last month because LSC claimed "there was no reasonable prospect of success".
The LSC seems to want it both ways. A statement from the commission said that as the non-autism and bowel disease cases were part of the MMR litigation group, they were linked to the success or failure of the group as a whole. While on the other hand it maintained that "all the responses received were considered individually".
When some of the families sought written reasons in order to appeal, they were told that a general decision had been taken by the multi-party action committee and no written reasons were available, making something of a mockery of the entire process.
Withdrawal of legal aid leaves the families in a precarious position. Next month there is a progress hearing in the high court into the stalled legal action. Not only do the families no longer have legal representation and face the costs of appearing at court in person, but they are also now at risk of having to pay the drug companies' court costs too. As Eye readers will recall, Lovells, the solicitors acting for Merck, one of the three defendant vaccine manufacturers, have already been accused of wrongly forcing parents to sign away any future rights to sue by threatening them with a huge bill for costs.
***********************
******************************

e-mail: ombudsman@ombudsman.co.uk

  • FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in copyright law. The material on this site is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Local Gov't Ombudsman Watch
Debtwise Debt Dispute Resolution
Quality Assurance Association Ombudsman
Landmine Survivors Network
Robin Good
Communications Agent Journal