Letter sent today to Thomas Body, senior caseworker at the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman
Dear Thomas,
I am writing in reply to your email dated Tuesday, April 1, 2025 by way of this ‘open document’.
This reply takes into account my request for rights and options to complain about your failures to meet the reasonable expectations associated with my complaint against the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust.
I am informing you that this reply will be copied to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) and The Ombudsman Association. I will also be copying this document onto my blog page at www.fourandtwentydeadcrows.com and raising awareness with the national press and various legal entities across the country.
As such, this document is not directly addressed to you but to the wider Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman and those copied above.
‘open document’
The following is written in response to Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman senior caseworker Thomas Body’s email received by me on the 1st April, 2025.
Thomas Body’s email states that ‘we cannot ask the Trust to answer the 70 questions you say have been left unanswered.’ This is despite Thomas Body’s earlier email request ‘Can you confirm what specific questions you wanted the Trust to answer as part of your desired outcome?’ received by me on the 6th March, 2025.
I had responded to Thomas Body’s request, spending the better part of two weeks working my way through several hundred pages of documented evidence, eventually collating 73 questions that had either remained unanswered or had been unsatisfactorily answered alongside new questions that had arisen during the course of my own investigations. I forwarded that list of questions on the 21st March, 2025.
I will address the issue of the 73 questions later in this document.
Thomas Body’s email makes further statements which inaccurately summarise my complaints against the Trust ie
‘During parent therapy sessions for Mr stock and his daughter, the sessions turned into unofficial therapy sessions for him.’
‘He says he has suffered psychological trauma and now is having to pay for private therapy sessions.’
‘He would like to be financially compensated to pay for therapy he is having because of what happened at the Trust.’
Thomas Body needs to be corrected on three points
1) The ‘parent therapy’ did not TURN into unofficial therapy. Unofficial therapy was delivered from the onset of ‘parent work’. Indeed, the email that offered appointments with CAMHS therapist, Sally Mungall were an invitation to attend ‘art therapy’. I even questioned the email, believing that the invitation had been meant for my daughter. I had not even requested ‘parent work’. I had requested to speak with a clinician with intimate knowledge of the family so that I could explore the possibility that intergenerational trauma was having an impact on my daughter’s mental health. When I turned up for the ‘art therapy’ appointment on the 2nd September, 2021, I made it clear to Sally Mungall that I wasn’t interested in taking part in ‘art therapy’. By the end of my second appointment, Sally Mungall had cajoled me into participating in ‘art therapy’. At no point did I engage in ‘parent work’. I wasn’t even aware of the concept of ‘parent work’. I would go further and state that I never gave informed consent for ‘art therapy’ nor informed consent for the psychotherapy that was actually delivered.
CONSENT TO TREATMENT
‘informed-the person must be given all of the information about what the treatment involves, including the benefits and risks, whether there are reasonable alternative treatments, and what will happen if treatment does not go ahead.’
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/
I was NEVER informed.
2) I DID suffer significant trauma and I DID seek alternative, private therapy which I paid for commencing July, 2022. This private therapy was sought out of desperation because my local community mental health team in Basingstoke were in a protracted dispute with iTalk over who should take responsibility over my mental health needs. I was eventually accepted into the services of my local CMHT and started therapy under the NHS in March, 2023. I was involuntarily discharged from private therapy in March, 2024 and continued with therapy under the NHS. I am currently in therapy under the NHS at the time of writing.
3) Thomas Body asked in his email dated 6th March, 2025 ‘Firstly, can you please tell me how much financial remedy you are seeking in respect to future therapy sessions and to remedy your complaint?’ I replied, ‘I have recently researched the subject online and found the following information. I am now seeking the maximum financial compensation in accordance with my findings.’ My extensive and ongoing psychotherapy has revealed that I have been psychologically damaged by inappropriate, abusive and unsanctioned psychotherapy delivered by Sally Mungall during ‘art therapy’ and psychologically damaged by Sally Mungall’s clinical cohorts and leadership at CAMHS, Bramblys Drive and the wider Trust who MISREPRESENTED me while communicating with colleagues in CRHT and CMHT and with Hampshire Constabulary and LYING to me and about me to other mental health providers including Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust. I would like to be financially compensated for all of the above and compensated for the psychological damage done to my reputation following the cynical and vexatious use of Hampshire Constabulary which is likely to remain with me for the rest of my life.
I have no experience in these matters so researched and found the following,
https://davisons.law/blog/psychological-damage-compensation/
Up to £141,240 compensation for a severe mental health injury
https://www.accidentclaimsadvice.org.uk/mental-health-claims/
Up to £141,240 compensation for a severe mental health injury.
https://www.legalexpert.co.uk/personal-injury-compensation claims/
Severe psychiatric damage up to £122,850
Thomas Body’s email now references ‘…level 3 or 4 of our financial remedy scale.’ I have
Now consulted the PHSO financial remedy scale and note that level 3 to for
recommends between £500 and £2950.
Not only is this an insult, it doesn’t even address the prime motivation behind my complaint, that being to hold the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust properly to account.
The Home page of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman website opens with the following statement
‘We independently investigate complaints about UK government departments, other public organisations and the NHS in England. We believe complaints have the power to reveal the truth, create lasting change and inspire a better relationship between people and public services. Our service is free, fair and open to everyone.’
This statement is a definite declaration of intent and clear expression of belief, first to INVESTIGATE complaints and second, that there is an undeniable ACCEPTENCE of basic values including TRUST, faith and CONFIDENCE in public services. Beliefs are convictions that we generally accept to be true. If the first moral duty of the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman is to reveal what is true than surely the prime imperative is INVESTIGATION.
Complaints should, out of basic necessity, resolve personal grievances and transform those grievances into improvements and recovery.
If complaints are not properly investigated then there can only be an undermining of the relationship between the people and the public services, leading to cynicism and a deterioration of confidence and an erosion of trust.
The Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman is as much a public service as the institutions that it is charged with investigating.
‘The Ombudsman possesses wide powers of investigation and is able to determine the procedure for the investigation and to obtain information from such people as required. In respect of the gathering of evidence and the examination of witnesses, the Ombudsman has the same authority as the High Court. Defiance of these powers can be treated as contempt of court.’
The Ombudsman should take full advantage of the wide powers at its disposal and investigate complaints with conviction, robustness and forensic integrity.
Truth is more important than the trouble it takes to get it.
If the Ombudsman fails to take full advantage of the wide powers at its disposal then it becomes a weak and ineffectual body, legally toothless and constitutionally impotent. Any failing public service can factor in this weakness and exploit the perceived impotence.
I am convinced that this is exactly what happened to my complaint made to the Patient Advisory Liaison investigator on behalf of the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust. My compliant was given deliberate short shrift hopeful that it might be iniquitously consigned to a swift oblivion. And if I protested and escalated my complaint to the Ombudsman? What then? The Ombudsman might make some recommendations but the Ombudsman does not possess the power to compel a public authority to adhere to its findings. Any individual culpable of wrongdoing can effectively hide behind the institution walls. The Trust itself is at liberty to ignore the Ombudsman or make token gestures of compliance and contrition. And I do not write these words speculatively.
In January, 2022, at the same time that clinicians and leadership working out of CAMHS, Bramblys Drive, Basingstoke and the wider Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust were formulating covert plans against me, the same Trust was being reported in the mainstream media.
'Investigation sought into health trust after 369 patients take their own lives following treatment
The Sussex Partnership NHS Trust was warned 15 times to improve care by coroners in the last five years, a Telegraph investigation found
22 January 2022 8:00pm GMT
More than 360 patients took their own lives after being treated by a mental health trust that was warned 15 times to improve care by coroners in the last five years, a Telegraph investigation has found...
Campaigners are calling for an urgent investigation by Ministers and health regulators into “repeated failings” and missed chances to prevent the deaths by suicide of 369 patients at Sussex Partnership NHS Trust.
The Daily Telegraph reports that 369 people died between 2016 and 2021 while under the Trust’s care despite 15 warnings from coroners about incorrect discharges, medication errors, and a lack of patient supervision.
Former Health Secretary and Chair of the Health and Social Care Select Committee, Jeremy Hunt said: "These repeated incidents are deeply concerning and seem to warrant further investigation.
“Bereaved families deserve to know whether vital opportunities to learn lessons and prevent tragedies have been missed, and whether there are deeper, more systemic issues at this trust.
“I hope regulators and Ministers will look at this as a matter of urgency."
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said that they had no plans to conduct an inquiry into Sussex, but that “every suicide is a tragedy and our sympathies go to the family and friends of those who have sadly died.”
DR UK Head of Policy Fazilet Hadi said: “It beggars belief that deaths in their hundreds over a five year period do not merit a full investigation. The Department of Health and Social Care and the CQC need to investigate and uncover the systemic issues leading to this exceptionally high level of suicides.” ‘
The Home page of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman website opens with the following statement
‘We independently investigate complaints about UK government departments, other public organisations and the NHS in England. We believe complaints have the power to reveal the truth, create lasting change and inspire a better relationship between people and public services. Our service is free, fair and open to everyone.’
The two component parts of the PHSO statement are 1) investigation and 2) belief
1) INVESTIGATION
‘We independently investigate complaints about UK government departments, other public organisations and the NHS in England.’
The following statement has been culled from the Wikipedia page
‘The Ombudsman possesses wide powers of investigation and is able to determine the procedure for the investigation and to obtain information from such people as required. In respect of the gathering of evidence and the examination of witnesses, the Ombudsman has the same authority as the High Court. Defiance of these powers can be treated as contempt of court.’
So, the first question I would like Thomas Body and the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman to answer is
‘Is the statement ‘The Ombudsman possesses wide powers of investigation and is able to determine the procedure for the investigation and to obtain information from such people as required. In respect of the gathering of evidence and the examination of witnesses, the Ombudsman has the same authority as the High Court. Defiance of these powers can be treated as contempt of court,’ TRUE?
And, if the answer to that question is ‘YES’ then why are you, on behalf of the PHSO refusing to posit the 73 specific questions that I wanted the Trust to answer as part of my desired outcome?
You, Thomas Body, on behalf of the PHSO, have the same authority as the High Court. If you posit my 73 questions and the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust refuses to answer my 73 questions then that refusal can be treated as contempt of court.
I put it to you that your refusal to posit my 73 questions is political.
I put it to you that your refusal to posit my 73 questions is tantamount to a special dispensation being afforded to the Trust. I would go further and suggest that this special dispensation is TYPICAL of the privileges and provisions afforded to the Trust and other organisations apparently ‘investigated’ by the PHSO.
A cursory scouring of the internet reveals the following damning reviews
https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.ombudsman.org.uk
‘They are clearly only set up to protect the organisations they are supposed to oversee.’
‘PHSO does not care and will protect the NHS’
‘Government sponsored quango covers-up NHS serious maladministration’
‘Helping the NHS cover up murder!!’
‘Absolutely disgusting. You allow vile abuse to continue’
IT IS OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE THAT THE 73 QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE SUBMITTED TO THOMAS BODY ARE POSITED TO THE SUSSEX PARTNERSHIP NHS FOUNDATION TRUST.
THE POSITING OF THESE QUESTIONS IS BUT A PART OF THE INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS.
THE TRUTHFUL ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS WILL IDENTIFY UNETHICAL AND UNLAWFUL ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE TRUST AGAINST MY DAUGHTER AND ME.
THE TRUTHFUL ANSWERS TO THOSE 73 QUESTIONS WILL IDENTIFY CLINICAL NEGLECT AND ABUSE OF MY DAUGHTER AND ME.
THE TRUTHFUL ANSWERS TO THOSE 73 QUESTIONS WILL UNDERPIN MY CLAIM
THAT MY DAUGHTER HAS SUFFERED PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS AND LONG-TERM PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE BECAUSE OF CLINICAL FAILURES OF THE TRUST.
THE TRUTHFUL ANSWERS TO THOSE 73 QUESTIONS WILL UNDERPIN MY CLAIM THAT I HAVE SUFFERED PERMANENT AND LIFE-LONG PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE BECAUSE OF THE UNETHICAL AND UNLAW ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE TRUST AGAINST ME AND BECAUSE OF THE CLINICAL NEGLECT AND ABUSE OF ME BY THE TRUST.
If the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman purposely chooses not to posit my 73 questions to the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust then I will continue to find the Ombudsman at fault.
2) BELIEF
‘We believe complaints have the power to reveal the truth, create lasting change and inspire a better relationship between people and public services.’
I would suggest that complaints only have the power to reveal the truth if they are properly investigated. Complaints can only lead to lasting change or restoration and improvement of services if and when the truth has been revealed.
A better relationship between people and public services is unobtainable if the Ombudsman fails to properly investigate complaints. If it is the perception of the people that the Ombudsman purposely chooses NOT to exercise the wide powers at its disposal or its ‘High Court’ authority in gathering evidence and examining witnesses then the people will have no confidence in those public services. Indeed, those same people will also have no confidence in the Ombudsman.
Failure by the Ombudsman to properly investigate complaint leads, inevitably, to a culture of pessimism.
Cultural pessimism arises with the conviction that the culture of a nation, a civilization, or humanity itself is in a process of irreversible decline.
Similarly, when a Trust understands that the Ombudsman is unwilling to exercise the wide powers at its disposal or its ‘High Court’ authority in gathering evidence and examining witnesses, that Trust becomes subject to cultural pessimism and can be corrupted or is corruptible.
I have supplied evidence to the Ombudsman that such cultural pessimism existed within the Trust. ( ref CAMHS, Bramblys Drive, Basingstoke and the influence of pessimism in decisions not to refer my daughter to Adult Services admitted to following investigations carried out by the Association of Child Psychotherapists ).
I have supplied evidence to the Ombudsman that the Trust has become corruptible. ( ref the same CAMHS, Bramblys Drive clinicians and wider Trust leadership who I was complaining about had authority over the redaction and or exemption decisions regarding my Access to Records requests and obstructed my access to evidence that likely incriminated those same CAMHS, Bramblys Drive clinicians and wider Trust leadership ).
I would argue that the Ombudsman role is similar to that of regulatory bodies including the Health and Care Professions Council, that being to protect the public.
One paper defines patient safety regulation as “the processes engaged in by institutional actors that seek to shape, monitor, control or modify activities within healthcare organizations in order to reduce the risk of patients being harmed during their care.”
The complaints process is an important entity in healthcare and healthcare insurance.
The complaints process plays a crucial role in maintaining public trust
The Association of Ombudsman states
‘The Vision of the Association is that throughout the public and private sectors:
· It is straightforward and simple for people to complain.
· People making a complaint are listened to and treated fairly.
· A complaint is dealt with quickly, fairly and effectively at the earliest stage by suitably trained staff.
· People have access to an ombudsman in all areas of consumer and public services.
· The learning from a complaint is used to improve services.
The Objectives of the Association are to:
· Support and promote an effective system of complaint handling and redress in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Britain’s Crown Dependencies and Britain’s Overseas Territories.
· Encourage, develop and protect the role of an ombudsman in both the public and private sectors as the ‘best practice’ model for resolving complaints, according recognition through membership.
· Provide an authoritative voice and promote best practice and policy for those involved in complaint handling and redress to ensure an effective service for the public.
· Support open and transparent accountability and endorse principles of good complaint handling.
End of ‘open document’
I cannot agree to your complaint summary because it does not accurately represent my complaint. I would respectfully ask that you revise your complaint summary in accordance with the details outlined in the above ‘open document’ and return to me with an improved commitment to my complaint against the Trust.
I am utterly convinced that you and the wider Ombudsman have utterly failed to grasp the enormity of the damage done to my daughter and especially to myself. I am currently suffering from
Life-long reputational damage
Long-term to life-long psychological damage.
Each of the following issues continues to present a serious risk to patients.
Clinical negligence
Proceeding without consent
Failure to observe and follow policy and protocol
Culture of pessimism
Deceit, dishonesty and misrepresentation
Corruption
The patients at risk at CAMHS are CHILDREN and ADOLESCENTS. Your office has a duty to INVESTIGATE. If you refuse, then YOU become equally culpable.
You need to try harder.
Yours sincerely,
MARK STOCK
7TH April, 2025