From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 04/12/2025 09:13, Davey wrote:

This is often quoted as a reason for 'no more discussion', whether it
be by Social Services, an electricity supplier ignoring requests to
cancel an account, HMRC, insurance companies, and many other
organisations. It is heard numerous times on 'Watchdog', for example.
Is this a valid defence to answering questions? Can an FoI request
overturn this reluctance to discuss a specific case, especially if the concerned and wronged individual requests it?

"It depends", is the only realistic answer that can be given.

GDPR, DPA and similar may well prevent private information being
revealed to third parties, so in that case they likely really "cannot
comment on individual cases" without breaching privacy laws.

Similarly, in addition to legal reasons for not discussing an
"individual case" there may be ethical reasons too.

Finally, the matter may be currently under investigation or the subject
of an on-going review and proffering a comment on the case at this time
may jeopardise the investigation / review.

However, if a party to the "individual case" contacts the organisation concerned, one, more or all of these conditions may no longer apply.

As an example, I invite you to read this recent article from The
Guardian concerning the provision of services by the NHS Wheelchair
Service and their contracted providers.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/dec/02/i-wish-i-could-say-i-kept-my-cool-my-maddening-experience-with-the-nhs-wheelchair-service

When contacted by The Guardian, AJM sent a short statement in response
to the claims in the article. It began: "While we cannot comment on individual cases, we are actively supporting those affected to prevent
any further delays or miscommunication." It continued: "We are proud to exceed NHS averages, with 97.4% of 12,830 Friends and Family Test
responses rating our service as good or very good. We also recognise
the crucial role wheelchair services play in people's independence,
which is why every case matters and we remain focused on continually
improving our performance and communication."

However, were Mr Sagar, (both the author and subject of the article
referenced above) to send a (Data) Subject Access Request to AJM
Healthcare, they would not be able to respond "we cannot comment on
individual cases".

Ditto for if Mr Sagar were to lodge a formal complaint with AJM
Healthcare's Customer Service Team (or Customer Disservice Team as they
ought to be named having read that article) which could then be
escalated to the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) if not
resolved satisfactorily.

In the name of completeness, I currently have a complaint going through precisely this process, although AJM Healthcare was not the entry point.
In my case it was NHS Trust --> PALS --> PHSO.

Regards

S.P.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 23:11 23 Dec 2025, Simon Parker said:

On 04/12/2025 09:13, Davey wrote:

This is often quoted as a reason for 'no more discussion', whether
it be by Social Services, an electricity supplier ignoring requests
to cancel an account, HMRC, insurance companies, and many other
organisations. It is heard numerous times on 'Watchdog', for
example. Is this a valid defence to answering questions? Can an FoI
request overturn this reluctance to discuss a specific case,
especially if the concerned and wronged individual requests it?

"It depends", is the only realistic answer that can be given.

GDPR, DPA and similar may well prevent private information being
revealed to third parties, so in that case they likely really "cannot comment on individual cases" without breaching privacy laws.

Similarly, in addition to legal reasons for not discussing an
"individual case" there may be ethical reasons too.

Finally, the matter may be currently under investigation or the
subject of an on-going review and proffering a comment on the case at
this time may jeopardise the investigation / review.

However, if a party to the "individual case" contacts the
organisation concerned, one, more or all of these conditions may no
longer apply.

As an example, I invite you to read this recent article from The
Guardian concerning the provision of services by the NHS Wheelchair
Service and their contracted providers.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/dec/02/i-wish-i-could- say-i-kept-my-cool-my-maddening-experience-with-the-nhs-
wheelchair-service

When contacted by The Guardian, AJM sent a short statement in
response to the claims in the article. It began: "While we cannot
comment on individual cases, we are actively supporting those
affected to prevent any further delays or miscommunication." It
continued: "We are proud to exceed NHS averages, with 97.4% of 12,830 Friends and Family Test responses rating our service as good or very
good. We also recognise the crucial role wheelchair services play in people's independence, which is why every case matters and we remain
focused on continually improving our performance and communication."

However, were Mr Sagar, (both the author and subject of the article referenced above) to send a (Data) Subject Access Request to AJM
Healthcare, they would not be able to respond "we cannot comment on individual cases".

Ditto for if Mr Sagar were to lodge a formal complaint with AJM
Healthcare's Customer Service Team (or Customer Disservice Team as
they ought to be named having read that article) which could then be escalated to the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) if not resolved satisfactorily.

Would the PHSO review the complaint if it had been handled by a
subcontractor to the NHS, as opposed to an NHS department itself?

Would it be better to address the intial complaint to the NHS
department responsible for providing patients with a wheelchair service
(and which chose to execute its responsibility by subcontracting to a
private firm)?

In the name of completeness, I currently have a complaint going
through precisely this process, although AJM Healthcare was not the
entry point.

In my case it was NHS Trust --> PALS --> PHSO.

Regards

S.P.

I thought PALS was usually the entry point? PALS doesn't have a formal procudure for resultion of concerns and if they fail to address
concerns satisfactorily then patients often get signposted to the
complaints procedure (almost invariably run by a Complaints
Department).

I'm assuming "NHS Trust" above means "complaints procedure within an
NHS trust".

For what it's worth, I currently have a concern with medical treatment
provided by a large hospital and have been advised to submit a
complaint to the local NHS Integrated Care Board (which contracts with
and oversees the hospital for health services) in order to to obtain a
bit more independence in any investigation.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2