Tweet
Dear all,
I am wondering why there are such disparate approaches offered by the above organisations when reviewing decisions.
The Legal Ombudsman seems to suggest they won't revisit a decision unless there are 'exceptional circumstances'. I remain at a complete loss at to what these circumstances are. It seems to me there are no exceptional circumstances.
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman lets you request as many reviews as you like (indeed, an infinite amount) as long as you provide information that could change their decision.
Why are there such contrasting approaches here?
I am wondering why there are such disparate approaches offered by the above organisations when reviewing decisions.
The Legal Ombudsman seems to suggest they won't revisit a decision unless there are 'exceptional circumstances'. I remain at a complete loss at to what these circumstances are. It seems to me there are no exceptional circumstances.
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman lets you request as many reviews as you like (indeed, an infinite amount) as long as you provide information that could change their decision.
Why are there such contrasting approaches here?
