3. Mr D complains about aspects of the care and treatment he received at the Practice. Specifically, he says the Practice failed to identify any health issues with his gums at regular check-ups.
4. Mr D says the health of his gums was so poor that he lost three of his teeth. He used an example of how one of his teeth came out while he was eating an apple.
5. Mr D would like financial remedy to pay for the repairs to his teeth he says are required.
6. We have considered the following information when coming to a decision on this complaint:
· the information Mr D provided to us in written correspondence and telephone calls · the information Mr D’s advocate provided to us in emails and telephone calls · the Practice’s complaint responses.
7. Mr D was aware of the issues with his teeth at the end of 2016, and says he first complained to the Practice in early 2017. The Practice has confirmed they removed Mr D from the Practice in 2018 and they have not treated him since. Mr D approached an advocate in June 2019. Following his advocate’s intervention, the Practice issued a final response to Mr D in January 2020.
8. The law says a complaint needs to be made to us within a year of the complainant becoming aware of the problem. We cannot investigate complaints brought to us after one year, unless we consider there is a good reason to do so. We have discussed this with Mr D to understand the reasons why he could not make the complaint within this timeframe. We have also considered the time the organisation has taken to respond to Mr D.
9. Mr D says he was awaiting a final response from the Practice before contacting us. He also says he had to contact an advocate due to his struggles with English, as it is his second language.
10. Although we don’t have a specific date, Mr D was first aware of problems with his care and treatment from the Practice towards the end of 2016. Therefore, Mr D should have complained to us by the end of 2017. We can see the Practice issued its final response in January 2020; however, it took Mr D a further year and eight months complain to us after receiving the response.
11. While we understand how Mr D could have encountered language barriers, he was able to find an advocate who started dealing with his complaint in June 2019. We have seen no reason why Mr D did not find an advocate sooner than 2019. Furthermore, we consider it reasonable that the advocate would have been aware of our service when they received the final response from the Practice. Therefore, the advocate could have prompted Mr D to complain to us in early 2020.
12. It is clear from Mr D’s account that he has been through a difficult time. We appreciate that he was pursuing his complaint with the Practice, and that a language barrier made it harder than it otherwise would have been for him to focus on this complaint. Unfortunately, the reasons provided by Mr D and his advocate do not justify the delays in the complaint being made to us.
13. We have carefully considered the information provided. We have not seen a good reason why Mr D could not complain to us sooner than he did. As such, we have decided not to put our time limit to one side. We are unable to consider this complaint for investigation as it is out of time.
1. We have carefully considered Mr D’s complaint about a dental practice in the Leeds area (the Practice). We have decided the complaint falls outside of our time limit.
2. We consider that Mr D could have complained to the Practice sooner than he did. We understand that he has been through a difficult time and feels strongly about the issues he has raised.