An independent provider in the South Gloucestershire area

4. Mr U complains about the care and treatment the Service has provided to his daughter, Miss U since March 2023.

5. Specifically, he says the Service provided Miss U with poor quality physiotherapy, harmful exercises, and postural management (treatment to preserve and restore body shape and muscle tone for people with movement difficulties) which was wrong because of a lack of staff expertise.

6. Mr U says because of the Service’s treatment, Miss U’s condition got worse, resulting in irreversible damage to her spine and posture. He also says he had to pay for private physiotherapy, equipment, and travel costs.

7. Mr U would like the Service to acknowledge what went wrong, apologise, reimburse him with costs and provide Miss U with financial remedy.

10. 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 Mr U to understand his circumstances and the outcomes he wants. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look in to.

11. Clinical negligence is when avoidable mistakes cause harm to the patient. In this case, Mr U says the Service staff provided incorrect treatment to Miss U which has caused irreversible damage to her spine and posture. We consider Mr U has a legal cause of action for the clinical negligence, as he believes the actions of the Service caused this harm to Miss U.

12. Mr U would like the service to acknowledge what went wrong and apologise. He would also like the service to reimburse him for costs he has paid and to pay a financial remedy to his daughter.

13. As a financial remedy, Mr U is seeking financial redress for the detrimental effects on Miss U’s health. He is looking for level six on our severity of injustice scale (£12,500 plus) to resolve his complaint.

14. We consider the amount sought is substantial. It is unlikely that pursuing legal action would cost more or take up a disproportionate amount of any remedy if Mr U was successful. A successful negligence claim could also potentially award compensation for any future necessary treatment.

15. It is not our role to advise whether someone has a claim or the merits of a potential claim. When a person seeks substantial financial remedy (as in this case) we consider they should seek legal advice as to whether they may have a legal route open to them.

16. There are a few reasons for this: • Strict time limits apply to legal claims, so it is not advisable for someone to follow the complaints route first without seeking advice if they think they have a claim or seek a large sum.

• If we were to find failings, we may not recommend a financial remedy at the level sought. A legal route may reach a higher figure.

• Our recommendations are not enforceable in the way compensation is via a legal route. If there are failings the complainant will be more likely to obtain the remedy via a legal route.

17. In our telephone conversations with Mr U on 3 and 11 July 2024, he told us he has approached one legal firm since the Service wrote to him on 14 November 2023. Mr U confirmed he has not yet approached any other legal firms. He confirmed there are no barriers to him pursuing a legal claim on a no win, no fee basis, and we think he needs to fully explore this.

18. In relation to the other outcomes Mr U is seeking, the courts are primarily set up to provide financial remedies. However, they can make recommendations that organisations undertake other actions, as well as providing a financial remedy. Therefore, we cannot assume that a complainant will not achieve remedies such as acknowledgement of what went wrong and apologies through legal action as a by-product. We explained to Mr U that he may return to us if he does not achieve any/all of the outcomes he seeks through legal action.

19. We explained to Mr U that if he does return to us, he should do so as soon as possible. This is because by law, we can usually only consider complaints made within 12 months of a person becoming aware of the events complained about.

20. We have considered if it is reasonable to expect Mr U to pursue a legal route. We are satisfied an alternative legal remedy is available to him, there are no barriers to him approaching suitable legal firms, and he is happy to do this.

21. Therefore, we will not be taking any further action on his complaint to us at this time. Mr U has no objections to this. We thank him for taking the time to discuss his complaint with us and we hope we have explained our decision clearly.

1. We have carefully considered Mr U’s complaint about the treatment an independent provider in the South Gloucestershire area (the Service) provided to his daughter, Miss U.

2. We are sorry to hear about the experience which Mr U has brought to us, and that Miss U’s condition got worse. We are also sorry to hear this had a financial impact on Mr U.

3. We consider Mr U has the option of taking legal action on the matters he has brought to us. We have carefully considered all the circumstances and decided it is reasonable for Mr U to pursue legal action for his complaint. For this reason, we cannot consider his complaint further. We go on to explain the reasons for our decision.