Clarifying PHSO Complaint: Key Questions Asked

The following documents relate to my correspondence with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman regarding complaint references issued in connection with my case. Despite recorded correspondence, sworn evidence and multiple document references, the Ombudsman has recently stated that two of the complaint reference numbers cannot be linked to my name. The material below sets out the timeline, the documents submitted, and the questions that remain unanswered so that the public record reflects the evidence as it exists.

To:William Moore

Senior Ombudsman Assurance Officer

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

T: 0300 061 4453

E: william.moore@ombudsman.org.uk

W: www.ombudsman.org.uk

4th March 2026

Re: RE: [O] RE: NFRC241207046189 Subject Access Request under UK GDPR – all personal data held in relation to my correspondence and reports SDR-026-0161Your email to the ICO – Case Reference IC-461437-H0W6

You said “We have no record connecting your name with two of the reference numbers.”

The letter from 1 November 2022 2026-03-04 – allegedly dated 01.11.2022 Letter to Mr Newbold from William Moore.pdf says three key things:

They confirm receiving your affidavit that you presented to Hastings County Court.
They say that sending the affidavit does not require them to reopen the complaint.
They say the letter represents their “final view” and they will take no further action.

The Second, the letter from your legal team dated 1 November 2022 acknowledges receipt of my affidavit. That affidavit raised matters of serious public interest concerning a very large number of children. Since that time the scale of the issue has increased significantly.

I note that you rely on a letter dated 1 November 2022 from the PHSO Legal Team as the final position on this matter.However, I did not receive this letter at the time. The only correspondence I received following the investigation was from the PHSO caseworker Kate Edwards (Senior Case Worker) who produced the report. As this letter appears to be relied upon as the final determination, please confirm when and how this letter was sent to me and provide evidence of delivery.

There is a receipt on the HMRC cort for this affidavit 2022-09-22 receipt of the HMRC Courts of the Affidavit dated 27-09-2022.pdf it is clear then the Ombudsman inform the HMRC courts that you would deal with the matter wholly when your letter of the 4th March 2026 from Ruth Whittaker Legal Officer suggests your reply to me was to refer it to the Courts is this not a paradox?

What you actually said was 2022-09-06 – Letter from PHSO C-2058682.pdf

On page 1 of your letter, attached 2022-11-11 Letter to PHSO – Royal Mail SF947482795GB(Enc).pdf you clearly list the complaint references:

C-2058682 (Department for Education)
C-2059461 (Children’s Commissioner / Social Work England)
C-2059421 (correspondence initially not located)2022-11-11 Letter to PHSO – Ro…

I also also list many Royal Mail tracking numbers for letters you sent (SF947482781GB, SF948054957GB, etc.).

Well, this is kind of interesting on one hand you state they are aware of my affidavit served on them. On the other hand, this is not the response from the phso .

“this is not the response from the phso . This email states that they did not provide decisions for two of the complaints and have tried to bluff…”

This email states that they did not provide decisions for two of the complaint and has tried to bluff that an the affidavit was primarily served on the ombudsman about 430,000 young children’s souls and the figure is now more than doubled 758,000 does he not consider in the light of the situation no one will discuss about Garry Daniels in not food for the situation of Andrew Mount Batton and Mandelson Dunkley and Daniels? Do you not consider that this situation should now be addressed. However, my intention in writing again was to clarify and ensure that the evidence and issues I raised have been properly understood and recorded. You will recall this is a SAR, a legal procedure.

“However, this does not appear to be a full response from PHSO. Your email states that there are no records connecting my name to two of the complaint reference numbers. This is surprising and requires clarification.”

Therefore I request clarification as to whether PHSO considers the other two complaints to have been determined, and if so, where those decisions were communicated.

Given that those reference numbers were recorded in my correspondence to your office, I would be grateful if you could clarify:

When those reference numbers were created.
Which complaint files they relate to.
Whether PHSO considers those complaints to have been determined, and if so where the decisions were communicated.

As the 1 November 2022 letter is now being relied upon as the final determination of the matter, please confirm:

When and how that letter was sent to me.
Whether there is proof of delivery for that correspondence.

Warm regards,
Martin Newbold

Dear Mr Newbold,

As promised, I am responding to your email. I have looked again at the matters you raised in your email below.

We have no record connecting your name or complaint with two of the reference numbers you shared with me (C-2059461 and C-2059421).

On 1 November 2022 PHSO’s legal team wrote to you about the affidavit you sent to us in September 2022 (I attach a copy). This letter also applies to our consideration of the third reference number you shared with me (C-2058682). This letter was our final statement on both issues.

I am satisfied we have dealt with your complaints appropriately. We cannot intervene with the matters you have raised with us.

I am sorry to share what may be disappointing news.

Yours sincerely

William Moore

Senior Ombudsman Assurance Officer