Open Letter to Public Authorities

When Oversight Depends on Framing.

On 9 October 2025, I initiated a referral request to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).

I framed the request as procedural failure — delay, refusal, safeguarding omissions — not dissatisfaction with decisions.

The responses mischaracterised my request:

• 16 Oct 2025: The office cited Judicial Review as the only route, reframing my request as a legal challenge.
• Later 16 Oct: I corrected the record, emphasising accountability through PHSO oversight, not legal advice.
• 24 Oct 2025: The office stated that “the PHSO does not have oversight of the Legal Ombudsman or the SRA,” contradicting the documentation and evidence I had provided.
• 24–26 Oct 2025: I requested written confirmation of authorship and whether my indexed dossier had been reviewed. No substantive correction followed.

Despite repeated clarifications, the office did not acknowledge the failures documented or provide written evidence of regulator engagement.

Oversight Denied

The pathway was clear:

• Independent Reviewer refused.
• MP referral misframed.
• PHSO access structurally blocked.

Because the request was reframed as a legal matter rather than a procedural failure, referral was withheld. Without referral, the PHSO could not act. Oversight was denied.

The record now turns to evidence of avoidance — where silence itself becomes part of the proof.

Evidence of Avoidance

I copied MPs into correspondence. I indexed the dossier. I asked for written confirmation.

No substantive reply was given.

That silence was not absence — it was avoidance. Non‑reply itself became evidence: suppression, deflection, obstruction.

For a Litigant in Person, avoidance is structural. It belongs in the record.

Performance Without Protection

The system performs fairness in theory: policies promise equality, codes cite impartiality, safeguarding frameworks are published.

In practice, protection is refused.

• Procedural failures are documented yet dismissed.
• Referrals are blocked or misframed.
• Accountability is displaced by silence.

Fairness is staged but not delivered. It is refusal dressed as procedure.

The next capsule shows how denial is not just theoretical — it is embedded in oversight itself.

Constitutional Weight

The contradiction is clear: statute promises oversight, reality withholds it.

As set out earlier, the PHSO was established by Parliament to investigate maladministration in government departments, agencies, and the NHS.

The Legal Ombudsman is itself a statutory public body, yet no written record explains why its failures are excluded from that oversight.

When MPs misframe or refuse referral, the safeguard of accountability collapses.

Accountability is not optional — it is the foundation of public trust. 

Message to Local Councils, MPs and Governments

You are entrusted with power by every person who signs an X in the ballot box.

That trust is not a gift to protect the system or yourselves.

It is a mandate to protect the people who placed you where you stand.

You are not gatekeepers of avoidance.

You are guardians of accountability.

Oversight must serve the people, not the institutions.

When oversight is blocked, accountability collapses.

When answers are withheld, it is not absence — it is avoidance recorded.

Accountability is not optional. It is statutory.

Litigants in Person are the test case.

If they are excluded, everyone is vulnerable.

Everyone matters — or no one does.

The record holds even when the replies do not.

And the public witness is rising.

Suppression by design is not theory

It is deliberate, documented, and now exposed as fact.

The record stands as constitutional witness

Denial is documented, and avoidance is no longer hidden.

What follows next is not procedural. It is personal.
It is the emotional consequence of judicial harm.

The part the system never records, but every Litigant in Person carries.
It stands alone because it must.