A dental practice in the Westminster area

3. Mr H complains about the dental treatment he had from the Practice between February 2020 and August 2021.

4. Mr H says the Practice gave him a badly fitting mouthguard in August 2021.

5. Mr H said the badly fitting mouthguard led to worsening dental problems, including an increased bite in his front teeth. He said this led to slurred speech and difficulty eating. He also says this resulted in him having wisdom teeth removed. Mr H says the experience caused unnecessary stress and anxiety.

6. Mr H wants the Practice to pay for his future Invisalign treatment (a form of braces) to fix his teeth. This has an initial cost of £6,800. He would also like the Practice to make service improvements.

7. In August 2021, Mr H had a dental appointment at the Practice. The dentist recommended an NHS gumshield for use at night, due to Mr H grinding his teeth.

8. In March 2022, Mr H had another dental appointment and explained he felt the situation was getting worse. He had stopped wearing the gum shield. The Practice advised him to continue with the gum shield.

9. In April Mr H was still unhappy with the gumshield and paid for a private consultation at a different dental practice. He said he was told the gumshield was the problem, as it was not covering his wisdom teeth. He said he was advised to have his wisdom teeth urgently removed and to begin Invisalign treatment.

12. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has (or had) the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is (or was) unreasonable in the circumstances. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look in to.

13. Mr H claims the dental mouthguard the Practice provided made his dental problems worse. He said after using the mouthguard, he needed more dental treatment.

14. Mr H told us the mouthguard did not fit his mouth correctly and pushed his wisdom teeth out of place. He also said his speech was affected, he could not eat properly and his quality of life was affected. This is a significant claimed impact.

15. Mr H said he saw a private dentist afterwards, who told him his wisdom teeth needed to be removed. This is a permanent effect. The private dentist also advised further treatment, at a cost to Mr H.

16. Based on what Mr H has told us, he may have a legal claim of dental negligence. Dental negligence is something people can take to court.

17. Mr H wants a financial payment of about £6,800 to fund his Invisalign treatment. But, we understand there may be further costs attached to this. We cannot consider possible future costs. On this basis it seems a legal claim might be able to achieve more in line with what Mr N wants.

18. Mr H has not told us about any barriers to him making a legal claim, although we recognise he does not want to do this.

19. We also thought about the other outcomes Mr H wants. He also wants service improvements. Service improvements might not come about as a direct result of legal action but may be a by-product of a successful claim.

20. We think it is appropriate for Mr H to explore taking legal action to resolve his complaint.

21. We are sorry to learn about Mr H’s complaint and thank him for bringing his concerns to us. We hope we have explained our decision clearly.

1. We have carefully considered Mr H’s complaint about a dental practice in the Westminster area (the Practice). We are sorry to hear about the dental problems Mr H experienced and the distress the events caused him.

2. We reviewed all the information Mr H provided and we think he could resolve his complaint by making a clinical negligence claim. We think this is the best action for him in the circumstances and he should explore this option further. We explain the reasons for our decision below.