Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust

3. Ms F complains on behalf of her father, Mr G.

Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust

4. She says on 9 January 2021 she was not allowed to be with her father in hospital and he was prematurely given an oxygen mask to help him with his COVID-19 symptoms.

5. She says this resulted in him becoming confused and distressed and led to him being placed on a ventilator.

6. She also complains the Trust transferred her father to Medway NHS Foundation Trust.

Medway NHS Foundation Trust

7. Ms F complains the Trust then transferred her father to Dartford and Gravesham NHS Foundation Trust.

8. Ms F says these transfers worsened her father’s condition.

Dartford and Gravesham NHS Foundation Trust

9. Ms F complains that whilst at this Trust: • her father’s condition deteriorated rapidly • doctors had an attitude of giving up on her father and were too focussed on the end of his life instead of getting him better • his ventilator was not placed correctly • staff were sometimes unaware of his condition • there were delays transferring her father’s body following his death, and • his personal effects were sent to the wrong address.

10. Ms F says because of what happened her father died prematurely and prevented family from being able to say goodbye. She says this has been devastating and made her lose faith in the NHS.

11. As an outcome to her complaint Ms F would like financial compensation and service improvements.

12. An ambulance took Mr G to Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust on 9 January 2021 as he was suffering from confusion, hightemperature and low oxygen levels caused by COVID-19. Doctors told Ms F there was not enough room for Mr G at this Trust so they transferred him to Medway NHS Foundation Trust.

13. Mr G spent several days at Medway Trust before doctors transferred him to Dartford and Gravesham NHS Foundation Trust. Following this second transfer, Mr G had a heart attack and his condition deteriorated quickly. Unfortunately, Mr G never got better and he sadly died in hospital soon after.

17. 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 have discussed this with Ms F to understand her circumstances and the outcomes she wants.

18. We do not say whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to explore. Having considered this, we believe legal action could potentially achieve the outcomes Ms F wants. We also believe it is reasonable that she pursues this further.

19. Ms F says poor clinical treatment and transfers resulted in the sad death of her father. She wants financial compensation and service improvements as an outcome to her complaint.

20. We have discussed financial remedy with Ms F to understand how much money would put things right for her. She explained that although she wants compensation, she does not have a figure in mind. She said that service improvements are the primary outcome she wants to achieve.

21. Although Ms F is interested in mixed outcomes we must still consider if a legal remedy is a reasonable option. A clinical negligence claim is well placed to achieve financial compensation. Moreover, this process might indirectly result in the service improvements she is seeking.

22. Furthermore, we are conscious Ms F withdrew from legal proceedings before they finished. This demonstrates there was a legal option open to her, and we have looked at the reasons she withdrew below. Consequently, we consider there is (or was) a legal route that Ms F could take.

23. We have considered whether a negligence claim would be a reasonable option for her to pursue. Barriers to pursing a legal route typically include: • being unable to afford legal action • disproportionate achievable remedy to the costs • no alternative of a ‘no-win-no-fee’ arrangement • complexity of pursuing legal action, and • personal circumstances like physical or mental health.

24. The letter from the solicitor’s firm explains it was in the process of pursuing a claim on behalf of Ms F for clinical negligence in response to the death of her father. The letter says Ms F and her solicitor entered a ‘Conditional Fee Arrangement’ on 29 April 2022. This was effectively a no-win-no-fee arrangement.

25. The letter finishes by saying Ms F had decided to terminate the agreement and the solicitors were no longer pursing this claim on her behalf.

26. We have spoken to Ms F about her decision to terminate the agreement with the solicitors. She says she was unhappy with how long the solicitors were taking to progress her case. She felt the firm was prioritising ‘paid for’ work (i.e. not her no-win-no-fee arrangement), and as she could not afford any upfront costs her case was neglected.

27. Ms F added several solicitors at the firm had worked on her case but left whilst working on it. She also explained the solicitors needed several pieces of expert advice to progress her complaint. These circumstances caused the delays Ms F experienced.

28. Having listened to Ms F’s circumstances, we understand that paying for legal action is not an option. However, she was able to successfully instruct a solicitor on a no-win-no-fee basis to overcome this barrier.

29. We also appreciate it was frustrating her claim was taking so long to settle and know how disheartening delays can be, especially given the sad circumstances of her complaint. Given the complexity of the case this was not unreasonable. It seems the firm was actively working on her case by reallocating it and getting the necessary clinical advice.

30. We cannot identify any pressing circumstances, such as ill health, to justify taking on this case when solicitors were actively representing her and progressing her claim. Therefore, we do not consider this was a barrier to Ms F pursuing legal action.

31. As we can see there is (or was) a reasonable alternative legal route available to Ms F we cannot investigate it further. She should therefore return to the legal process to resolve her complaint.

32. It might be that a legal claim does not result in the service improvements she wants. If that is the case then she is welcome to return to us after the clinical negligence claim concludes.

33. If Ms F does return to us then she should do so promptly in respect of our time limit. Our time limit is 12-months from the date someone had cause to complain. We can set this to one side but there must be good reason to do so. It is therefore important she comes back to us without delay.

1. We have carefully considered Ms F’s complaint and decided she could reasonably pursue legal action on the matter she has brought to us. This means we cannot consider it further at this stage.

2. We recognise just how devastating these events have been for Ms F and her family. We understand the upset she has experience and acknowledge the distress she has told us about.