Dear Ms Gillian Guy,
I write in reference to received independent adjudication review report dated 15 November 2016. Before delivering our opinion concerning this review report, I will start with highlighting complaint major milestones:
1. CITIZENS ADVICE
1.1. NHS ADVOCACY SERVICES
In September 2015 I contacted Huddersfield Citizens Advice Office to discuss and help with ongoing complaints against number of health institutions, namely: CHT PACS, Local Care Direct, NHS England and Crosland Moor Surgery.
On Tuesday 08 September 2015, I met with Ms Ginny Woolfenden to review the march of ongoing complaints; she then confirmed that her role will be a pure interface channel to ease communication with the concerning institutions.
On 14 September 2015, Ms Ginny Woolfenden stated: “Kirklees NHS Complaints Advocacy Service can not undertake any legal action or litigation with regard to the NHS – so if you want undertake ‘legal actions to assure and protect against any future inconvenience caused’ I am afraid that this is not something I or Kirklees Law Centre can assist with”; this leads to corollary understanding that NHS advocacy operations are not subject to Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman nor to Legal Ombudsman, and therefore, the Citizens Advice complaint procedure persists as the ultimate recourse for such review.
On 10 June 2016, I emailed the PACS Team affirming that “Ms Ginny Woolfenden and all Kirklees Citizens Advice and Law Centre members are no more authorised to represent my side. This shall effectively ends their participation in current complaint communication as well as no more information sharing is allowed from or with them. However, they remain responsible for any countered inconvenience due to their work”. Thus, any further communication after this notification date would be a clear violation to agreed terms with al involved parties.
1.2. THE OMBUDSMAN
Formal complaints may be referred for a registered third party for their independent review if no satisfactory local resolution can be achieved, among which is the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) established to “investigates complaints about government departments and some other public bodies – they can also look into complaints about NHS hospitals or community health services”, the latter is different from Legal Ombudsman which “can help resolve legal service disputes” – quoted from CAB website. This however, does not deny the right to seek justice through the legal route if client decided not to communicate with the Ombudsman.
On June 2015, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman stressed to wait till all involved health institutions get finalized before complaints to be considered. Following listed institutions and their status:
1. Local Care Direct: NHS Advocacy played no role. Final response received. Referral made to PHSO.
2. NHS England and Crosland Moor Surgery: NHS Advocacy played limited role. Final response received. Referral made to PHSO.
3. CHT PACS: NHS Advocacy played ambiguous role. Troubling referral made to PHSO. Vague End of resolution letter delivered in November 2016 upon new complaint headed to the Chairman of the Board in September 2016 but no final response received.
2. COMPLAINT TO CITIZENS ADVICE AND LAW CENTRE
2.1. COMPLAINT SCOPE
I usually use a particular method for defining complaint scope to avoid falling into anticipated manipulation scenarios. If to take formal marriage relationship as an example, a spouse can divorce another for various reasons but one cannot use good honeymoon times to justify or deny escalating life hurdles and surprises. Hence, conflicts to be predominantly addressed based on current changes in the concerning relationship.
The same applies to a formal relationship between an independent client and advocacy caseworker from citizens advice and law centre; the investigator shall address the complaint triggers not to propagate or use overall service assessment to mitigate or deny the encountered inconvenience and subsequently waste of charity funds. I therefore did stress in number of times for all involved parties to address issues in email 25 May and June 11 2016 subsequently to avoid time and complaint mismanagement.
On 05 September 2016, I wrote to Mr Steve Anderson from the Client Services Team that “I can predict you are working on a good quoted, paraphrased, legally written review to support your argument in front of the independent adjudicator not to serve the client. Otherwise, a sincere review can be concluded in a short response without much hassle from the assigned NHS Advocacy Caseworker herself to reply to the open email communication 25 May 2016, which if she did then had avoided this complaint unless she realised the inconvenience she put me in as a client”. This shall finalise any complaint scope argument.
2.1.1. SCOPE FOCAL EMAILS
In conjunction with 25 May 2016 and 11 June 2016 emails, the following focal emails were also provided to the independent adjudicator to bring a rational end to the anticipated communication clarity argument:
# Ms Ginny Woolfenden Email 23 May 2016 at 16:09 “I do not believe I can continue to support you as an advocate without fully understanding your instructions – which I feel I have been unable to do over the recent months”.
# Mr Gerard Curran Email 23 May 2016 at 14:00 “Further to your client’s email below, please accept my sincere apologies as I am slightly confused by your client recent emails”.
# Ms Ginny Woolfenden Email 23 May 2016 at 12:32 “I would suggested that you revert directly to the PHSO rather than chasing after the Trust”.
# Ms Ginny Woolfenden Email 16 May 2016 at 11:10 “I cannot take your complaint to the PHSO until I have been given the final response from the Trust. I have asked Gerard, complaints manager to confirm the Trusts position in writing so that I can do this”.
2.2. FORMAL COMPLAINT – 25 MAY 2016
I requested in person from the Huddersfield Citizens Advice Office Manager to investigate suspected collaboration between Ms Ginny Woolfenden, Solicitor and Kirklees NHS Complaints Advocacy Service Caseworker and Mr Gerard Curran, Patient Advice and Complaints Manager at Calderdale Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust.
I did not discuss Local Care Direct GP or Crosland Moor Surgery Nurse Services in this complaint meeting. I even offered my smart phone for the Huddersfield Citizens Advice Office Manager to read the 25 May 2016 email communication to understand my concerns but she declined to comment. She promised to review the matter and update the following day through the phone but no response received since.
I believe the above is within advertised complaint procedure: “Complaints can be addressed to the bureau manager or chair. You can tell the bureau on the phone or face-to-face that you want them to investigate your complaint”.
2.3. FURTHER REVIEW – 03 June 2016
Hence no call received from Huddersfield Citizens Advice Office Manager, I needed a recorded reference to protect my complaint existence, and therefore communicated with Huddersfield CAB again to request a written reference but nothing received. However, one member did provide contact details for Mr Nick Whittingham. Later on, I wrote a letter to Chief Executive at Kirklees Citizens Advice and Law Centre to “complain and reveal unclear communication and expectations” between Ms Ginny Woolfenden, Solicitor and Kirklees NHS Complaints Advocacy Service Caseworker and Mr Gerard Curran, Patient Advice and Complaints Manager at Calderdale Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust.
To avoid subsequent clarity argument, the concerning Kirklees team is firstly aware of sight and facial pain condition if to ignore the march of the complaint can lead to reasonable understanding that I intended to write “unexpected unclear communication”. Nevertheless, email dated 11 June 2016 was headed to Chief Executive to avoid prospective misunderstanding excuse. He also did not request further clarification if encountered:
“COMPLAINT FACT: I previously complained through a 1st class recorded post letter dated 03 June 2016. I based my complaint understanding on the Chief Executive will to investigate the forwarded email and its related communication in details”. 11 June 2016
I again did not discuss Local Care Direct GP or Crosland Moor Surgery Nurse Services in the complaint scope. I might forget to refer to concerning email 25 May 2016 in the letter but I definitely enclosed copies of the concerning email communication with the concerning parties so the Chief Executive can fairly understand case background. The letter is recorded and therefore envelope weight records with the Royal Mail can be reached to affirm there was more than one sheet posted – letter footer line shall read: Page 1 of 6.
I believe the above is within advertised complaint procedure: “If you are still not happy after the local Citizens Advice response, you can request a further review. The review will be conducted under the direction of the Citizens Advice Chief Executive”.
2.4. INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION REVIEW:
I initially needed to substantiate the background of the prospective independent adjudicator to affirm I am communicating with responsible personal with official corporation email and professional title whilst the Citizens Advice previously refused to “release any of her private contact details without her permission”, Steve Anderson said on 15 September 2016.
I eventually did an online search for Ms Barbara Stow and coincidently arrived in one of her previous case communication with Mr Erik Ribsskog who volunteered by “planning to publish my e-mail on my blog, so then at least, I’ll be able to deal with this in that way, that I at least get this published, so that maybe someone reads this, and maybe react or reflect on what’s going on”. I hence thought to summarise his communication in the following key words: “disappointed, suspect, lie, ignored, strange, magic, errors, worrying, fail, set-ups, ignored, games, corrupt, phoney”, which I find similar to my case in terms of resulted frustration.
E-mail from the independent CAB Adjudicator, Barbara Stow, on 29/4/08.
On 15 November 2016, Ms Barbara Stow stated: “You will see that the notepaper has a different email address from the one from which I have been corresponding with you. That is the one that I normally use for this purpose but it was temporarily unavailable when I began working on your case”. I am afraid Ms Barbara Stow delivered report contains the same email,barbara.stow@btinternet.com, she previously used with Mr Erik Ribsskog.
In addition, I have never requested from the independent adjudicator “to influence the progress of your complaints about your medical treatment”. I did predict the outcome from her review providing her previous story with Mr Erik Ribsskog but still forwarded focal emails to avoid her any excuse. This was also an opportunity to utilise the complaint to investigate the extent of failure in CAB operations hoping this will drive someone from the establishment to stand-up for such violations.
I hereby advise Mr Erik Ribsskog and other affected members of the public that you might not consider taking legal action but definitely you can contact the Charity Commission to open a statutory inquiry into a charity when there is significant public interest in the issues involved and the outcome.
2.4.1. SCOPE OF WORK BY INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR:
On 24 September 2016, Ms Barbara Stow confirmed that “the purpose of my review is to consider how your complaint was handled, not whether it is justified”, and “Specifically, my remit is to examine whether, in my opinion, complaints have been dealt with in compliance with the Citizens Advice procedure, and investigated fairly. If I find deficiencies I say so and I may direct that there should be further investigation. At the end of a review I send a report to national Citizens Advice who will send it to you and to the bureau”.
2.4.2. THE REVIEW REPORT FOCAL POINTS:
I admit struggling with too many repetitive arguments in addressing Ms Barbara Stow raised points, especially her double-standard approach in most listed points aimed to allow the author an avenue to escape controversial issues. Due to health condition restrains, I decided to respond to following most vital arguments:
# POINT 59:
On 16 May 2016, Mr Gerard Curran wrote: “your client does not wish to attend a local resolution meeting to discuss this matter further”, but declined to “provide an evidence of such accusation if to proceed”, requested on 25 May 2016.
On 18 May 2016, I responded: “This is another inaccurate judgment if to consider that the TRUST refused to respond to my request on 21 August 2015 to meet with the CEO, Medical Director, and the Head of Complaints, which affirms the hidden intention to delay the process”.
On 19 May 2016 Ms Ginny Woolfenden wrote: “you are now asking me to set up a meeting with the Trust and for this meeting to be recorded. For sake of completeness – can you provide me with a clear agenda for what you want to discuss at this meeting” ignoring the fact being told on 29 April 2016 “I now believe no authentic communication with the health services in Kirklees but recorded”, this to avoid double standard communication.
On 25 May 2015, I responded: “I again cannot understand the purpose nor able to set a specific agenda for your proposed unclear «local resolution meeting to discuss this matter further» whilst you contradictorily just said I did “not raised any new issues» and accused me of not willing to attend, which overall do not reflect genuine intentions”.
# POINT 61:
Ms Ginny Woolfenden has confirmed she plays no legal role in the concerning complaints with NHS institutions. In her 14 September 2015 email, she stated: “Kirklees NHS Complaints Advocacy Service can not undertake any legal action or litigation with regard to the NHS – so if you want undertake ‘legal actions to assure and protect against any future inconvenience caused’ I am afraid that this is not something I or Kirklees Law Centre can assist with”; ”; this leads to corollary understanding that received NHS advocacy operations not subject to Legal Ombudsman unless Ms Ginny Woolfenden was delivering undeclared legal advice to the NHS whilst serving an opponent client.
# POINT 63:
On 25 May 2016, I wrote: “The August 2015 request for deletion and clarification about the Head of Ophthalmology Department, Mr Owrou’s incorrect report statement was compromised in October 2015 to a request for an objection statement to be loaded to my NHS profile records against his statement. The latter action was drafted under the supervision of Kirklees NHS Advocacy. The TRUST response, however, did not reflect about or confirmed such action accomplishment. Hence, the TRUST’s response become professionally incomplete, and therefore the TRUST are very obliged to respond along with a DATED copy of the subject objection statement if indeed actioned and loaded”.
# POINT 67:
I find it inconsistent approach to advocate that chief executive “had offered to assist with the complaint against the Trust but the client clearly did not wish to take up the offer”, knowing the latter is not the sole of my complaint to Kirklees Citizens Advice & Law Centre. That said, the chief executive himself declined to comment about the ethical responsibility for the assigned NHS Caseworker to confirm if her designed complain is fully unanswered before referral to PHSO as well as to respond and explain her unclear series of May 2016 email communications. Plus, it is my own decision alone to choose to whether seek justice through the legal route or to communicate with the Ombudsman if not satisfied with the response.
The Chief Executive with his counterparts use such vague statements to support their fragile positions else fully addressed in 11 June 2016 email communication. In fact, I find it inadequate practice to take a credit for offering a service to a vulnerable client whilst knowing it is unfeasible offer, especially from a senior officer at Kirklees Citizens Advice & Law Centre regardless of his membership status, which I find irrelevant to the client or to be used to justify a loose argument.
Furthermore, Ms Barbara Stow herself read the forwarded to date emails where “the CHT management … propagate a troubled meeting discussion in 23 June letter to MP, or in August to the PHSO or to later offer to discuss a meeting plan over phone in 19 August and yet today is 25 August 2016 and still no meeting and agenda delivered through email or in writing”.
# POINT 68 to 74:
Phone conversation with Ms Grace from CAB Client Services Team on 13 June 2016 concluded in me: “sending a detail list of reasons you’re unhappy with the way your complaint has been handled by your local office. Once we have received these reasons we will request a copy of your file from the local office. Thus, I forwarded to her account a duplicate version of 11 June 2016 email unanswered inquiries previously raised to the Chief Executive.
On 29 June 2016, Ms Kimberley from CAB Client Services Team mentioned that “After looking into your complaint further, we note that your complaint is about the services that were provided to you by Virginia Woolfenden, a regulated solicitor, not against Kirklees Citizens Advice & Law Centre. Therefore, if you want to take this matter further the next stage would be to contact the Legal Ombudsman. It is not correct for Citizens Advice to either continue with a review of your complaint, or escalate the matter to an Independent Adjudicator because your complaint is about the services of a regulated solicitor”.
However, “When requested to provide explanation or confirmation, Ms Kimberley provided no further comments to support her investigation time nor able to confirm back if Ms Ginny Woolfenden is the same person as «Virginia Woolfenden, a regulated solicitor, not against Kirklees Citizens Advice & Law Centre»; I think this in-line with Ms Barbara Stow investigation scope providing she earlier “explained that the purpose of my review is to consider how your complaint was handled, not whether it is justified”, which confirms the ambiguity of the entire fantastical review framework designed to diminish client’s right for fair investigation.
On 05 September 2016, I wrote to Mr Steve Anderson from the Client Services Team that “I can predict you are working on a good quoted, paraphrased, legally written review to support your argument in front of the independent adjudicator not to serve the client. Otherwise, a sincere review can be concluded in a short response without much hassle from the assigned NHS Advocacy Caseworker herself to reply to the open email communication 25 May 2016, which if she did then had avoided this complaint unless she realised the inconvenience she put me in as a client”. This shall rationally finalise any complaint scope argument if the concerning CAB team is indeed time and cost effectiveness oriented.
# POINT 74:
In spite of clarity argument about 03 June 2016 complaint letter, the Kirklees team is aware of my eyes health condition if to ignore the fact that march of the complaint confirms my intention to write “unexpected unclear communication”. Nevertheless, email dated 11 June 2016 was headed to Chief Executive to avoid misunderstanding excuse. He also did not request further clarification if encountered.
In fact, when requested to “response as came in my email to Ms Ginny Wolfenden. I would be grateful also if you can confirm if the action drafted by Ms Ginny Wolfenden is delivered as per your reading of trust response”, the Chief Executive responded on 10 June 2016: “My role as Complaints Officer is not to act a second opinion and I have no comment to make on the detail of your case”, which confirms the vagueness of his response and who support his approach.
# POINT 75 & 76:
On 14 November 2016, I wrote to Ms Barbara Stow stating that “Ms Ginny Woolfenden apparently invites the client (Me) in her comfortable zone to learn about his weak and strong points and bass them outside work communication system to the concerning CHT team for their proper protective action; in certain scenarios, she use phone or meetings to avoid being hold responsible through recorded email; she also push clients to prepare agenda for a meeting proposed by others to avoid get legally stuck in front of the CHT management if the meeting got recorded”.
On 19 May 2016, I wrote to Ms Ginny Woolfenden: “I always insisted to have everything recorded but not to go for unauthentic meetings and phone conversations to be twisted as needed and as reflected over the march of my complaint. Hence, your previous statement makes Kirklees NHS Advocacy follow the TRUST path in misinterpreting my positon as well as my clear statement on 29 April 2016 “I now believe no authentic communication with the health services in Kirklees but recorded”. It also overlooks the fact the TRUST refused to respond to my request on 21 August 2015 to meet with the CEO, Medical Director, and the Head of Complaints if they really have the good will to address my issues. Please call for witness: Ms [Nureen] and Ms Vanessa from PACS, and the HRI CEO Office secretary to affirm how many times I called for a meeting arrangement.
Ms Barbara Stow is again manipulating 23 May 2016 email’s narrative without authentic foundation merely to avoid reflecting on the core complaint trigger, email 25 May 2016, which Kirklees Citizens Advice & Law Centre overlooked because it reveals the truth behind all May 2016 communication. In fact, if Ms Ginny Woolfenden on 23 May 2016 “could not support him if communication was only to be by email”, then it would be “inconsistent for [her] to deliver a later dated 07 June 2016 letter with such controversial content and still not able to reflect to your own statement in below unclosed email communication” just after knowing that “I then raised the complaint to the Chief executive Mr Whittingham on 03 June 2016”.
# POINT 77 & 78:
I just wonder which procedures were followed and which specific points to provide if “I even offered my smart phone for the Huddersfield Citizens Advice Office Manager to read the 25 May 2016 email communication to understand and respond to my concerns but she declined to comment. She promised to review the matter and update the following day through the phone but no response received since”. This is the most absurd argument in to date review stage which affirms Ms Barbara Stow’s irrefutable “superficial and defensive” role as well as it reveals the corruption extent at CAB complaint procedures.
# POINT 80:
Old school argument intended to mitigate encountered manipulations in the entire time-frame allocated to investigate the complaint raised to Citizens Advice Bureau. In fact, the reader of entire September 2016 emails to the CAB Client Services Team can easily realize irrefutable manipulation of complaint time-frame if not poor effort management.
# POINT 82:
I just wonder what is the purpose of the continues nonsense talk about a “local resolution remained open” whilst Ms Barbara Stow herself has read through forwarded emails where “the CHT management … propagate a troubled meeting discussion in 23 June letter to MP, or in August to the PHSO or to later offer to discuss a meeting plan over phone in 19 August and yet today is 25 August 2016 and still no meeting and agenda delivered through email or in writing”, which confirms she only notes what validated its predetermined agenda.
Indeed, it is a hilarious independent adjudication review to propagate important issues in total illusion and without true bases. In June 2016, the PHSO declined to consider my complaint against the CHT Trust before receiving final position letter as well as the first stage response is incomplete as reported in the provided email, which in return destroys the “PHSO referral” repetitive song by all involved parties.
Furthermore, the PHSO wrote a two months delayed deleterious letter around 09 August 2016 to Huddersfield PACS falsely stating that I told them I did not receive a response to my October 2015 complaint, which reveals the size of collaborative fraud in the concerning system. That said, Ms Barbara Stow affirmed her exhausted position through seeking events occurred after June 2016.
# POINT 84:
Firstly, it is rationally accepted that the general aim of any investigation is service improvement and customer satisfaction; such process may combines intangible and or tangible remedies. Secondly, I tend to organise complaint stages into primary and secondary milestones but leave the “ultimate” outcome to evolve with the rise of events especially when based in a volatile environment. That said, the shared outcome with Ms Barbara Stow was to satisfy her curiosity upon her request; else this is not in-line with the “heart” of her investigation scope.
However, I did feel after reading the gist of her 12 November 2016 response that conveyed main outcome may misrepresented or rendered of secondary importance, and therefore, I effectively informed Ms Barbara Stow that “Ms Ginny Woolfenden has partially hindered October 2015 complaint targeted outcome from the CHT, which to receive immediate surgical operation for both eyes in Huddersfield or else. Meanwhile, Kirklees Chief Executive and CAB Feedback team have respectively constrained the flow of complaint in number of times due their understanding of my court hearing even if not admitted”.
In addition, I am surprised for Ms Barbara Stow to be “curious about what you had wanted the advice and law centre to do in practical terms that would help your situation at the time – in June 2016 when you sent your letter of complaint to the Kirklees chief executive” but instead of “faithfully” reporting “The offered financial redress option can be a direct payment to an accredited private ophthalmology clinic to provide the concerning surgery in the nearest opportunity, as the closer the operation to be done the better results achieved”, she assumed no “further investigation of his complaint about the advocacy service would serve any useful purpose”, which confirm her dramatic fantasy of caring for client’s “distressing eye condition”.
# POINT 94:
To avoid the subsequent clarity argument, the concerning Kirklees team is firstly aware of sight and facial pain condition if to ignore the march of the complaint can lead to reasonable understanding that I intended to write “unexpected unclear communication”. Nevertheless, email dated 11 June 2016 was headed to Chief Executive to avoid prospective misunderstanding excuse. He also did not request further clarification if encountered.
I again did not discuss Local Care Direct GP or Crosland Moor Surgery Nurse Services in the complaint scope. I might forget to refer to concerning email 25 May 2016 in the letter but I definitely enclosed copies of the concerning email communication with the concerning parties so the Chief Executive can fairly understand case background. The letter is recorded and therefore envelope weight records with the Royal Mail can be reached to affirm there was more than one sheet posted – letter footer line shall read: Page 1 of 6.
# POINT 96:
I previously stated that I submitted recorded complaint on 3 June 2016 to CEO of Kirklees CAB and Law Centre. The Royal mail tracking information confirmed letter delivery on 06 June 2016 noon time (11:55). On 10 June 2016 at 14:26 the Chief Executive said «letter of 3rd June 2016, received by me today», and yet proceeded investigation and decided the same day to «do not uphold your complaint».
In other words, if the Chief Executive arrived in his office around 9 o’clock, therefore it took him approximately 5 hours 26 minutes to reach his decision after «looked at your case file and the work that has been done for you and have considered your complaint in relation to unclear communication and expectations».
However, when challenged to provide answers to raised inquiries in email 11 June 2016, the Chief Executive replied on 13 June 2016 «You are trying to draw me into re-visiting issues and I am not prepared to do that. I have offered to assist with your complaint against the Trust and you clearly do not wish to take up my offer. I think our correspondence must now come to an end». However, on 10 June 2016 Chief Executive said “My role as Complaints Officer is not to act a second opinion and I have no comment to make on the detail of your case”, which is purely to do with NHS Caseworker’s drafted action part of the troubled complaint as well as the clarity argument in 25 May 2016 email communication.
As per aforementioned, it is inadequate to talk about “opportunity Cost, at the expense of the service to other clients, in responding to complaints in fine details”, whilst complaint then did reach the maximum advertised 8 weeks on the CAB website to consider all raised issues. In fact, the reader of entire September 2016 emails to the CAB Client Services Team can easily realize irrefutable manipulation of complaint time-frame if not poor effort management.
* * * * * * *
CONCLUSION:
In brief, the independent adjudicator was bias in relating client (Me) circumstances in which objective facts are made less influential in shaping her post-truth review report. I found repeated assertion of ignoring focal points or and painting them as unimportant or irrelevant. I believe it is an intellectually inconsistent review report that conflicts with the Citizens Advice’s propagated vision.
I am not in a position to discuss qualifications or titles but I found involved personals did not faithfully fulfill their assigned duties. I therefore call on the Chief Executive at Citizens Advice Bureau to intervene and further investigate our complaint.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
Abdalmonem Abu-Aleid
