3. Miss A complains about the lack of care SCAS provided to her son Mr E on 25 and 26 April 2023.
4. Miss A says SCAS ambulance crews failed to provide any treatment or take any clinical observations despite several attendances, due to him refusing help. She says her son’s capacity to make these decisions was compromised and crews failed to consider this.
5. She says her son died due to these failings.
6. Miss A seeks compensation for the loss of her son’s life.
9. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has the option to take legal action, unless we consider it is not reasonable for them to do so. We do not base our decision on how successful legal action would be. Rather, we consider whether legal action is a reasonable option for someone to pursue.
10. We discussed this with Miss A to understand her circumstances and the outcomes she is hoping to achieve. Miss A has told us she is seeking financial compensation for the Trust’s actions. She indicated she would be willing to take legal action and has not identified any other outcomes she is seeking.
11. Miss A has not told us a specific amount of compensation she is seeking. She has described how her son was young and healthy and that his death was entirely preventable with intervention. She describes the devastating effect this has had on her and her other son’s health since. We appreciate Miss A does not know exactly how much compensation she considers would be appropriate.
12. However, the circumstances she describes in her complaint suggest a very serious injustice and one which could match the description of a clinical negligence claim. Consequently, any compensation linked to that claimed injustice would probably be at the high end of such sums. While we can achieve financial remedy in some situations, the Courts can, and often do, achieve much higher sums.
13. The time limits for taking legal action are strict and we are barred from considering any complaint that has been, or may be, subject to legal action. We must consider if us considering a complaint in more detail, which would take time, would result in a complainant losing the opportunity for a better outcome via the Courts.
14. We also believe it is important that, before we consider if we are the right way forward, that Miss A fully explores the potential legal route first. We do not wish her to have any uncertainty later about the path not taken. We cannot give the complaint deeper consideration while there is still some question around this. Before we consider this complaint further, we also wish to be reassured there is not a more suitable way forward for her.
15. Miss A told us she wanted to pursue legal action and raised no barriers to doing so, financial or otherwise. However, she had not found a solicitor willing to take on the case. Miss A is aware legal advice can be free of charge or offered under a conditional arrangement such as ‘no win, no fee’ services, which would not incur any upfront charges. Miss A has provided evidence to establish she has approached one such firm of solicitors and got a reply.
16. The firm declined to pursue the case on the basis that there was a low likelihood of a successful claim. The firm also advised Miss A to approach other solicitors for an opinion. This tells us two things. Firstly, there may be legal cause of action available (a legal claim that could be pursued). Secondly, the solicitors did not consider there would be enough evidence to win such a case but could not say this is a view all solicitors would share. This may, or may not, have been influenced by considering it only on a feeless basis.
17. As per the firm’s advice, this may not be the view of all solicitors, and potentially a different solicitor may wish to support a clinical negligence claim. We believe it is important Miss A should approach at least another two legal advisers while the window of opportunity remains open to find out. We would need to see something in writing from other solicitors to document their reasons for declining representation if she needs to return to us later.
18. There is another factor that informs our thinking. Miss A has advised us that the Police were present during some of the events complained about and this may be a source of evidence. We can only consider complaints about NHS services. We recognise she is not complaining about the actions of police officers, but this still limits the scope of what we evidence we may look at. Potentially the Courts focus may not be as limited. We also bear in mind that we must be impartial, whereas a solicitor would be able to support and advocate for their client in pursuing a legal case.
19. Should Miss A want to bring her complaint back to us, she should do so as promptly as she can. We have a time limit for looking at complaints which is 12 months from the date the person was aware they had reason to complain. While her initial complaint has been brought to us in time, we still need to ensure there are no unaccounted for delays later. Therefore, we ask that she returns to us without delay if she needs to after making legal enquiries.
20. We have considered the relevant factors and law. A could take legal action on the issues she has brought to us. We do not see any barriers to prevent Miss A from pursuing legal action and we think it is reasonable that she does so. We have therefore decided not to consider the complaint further.
21. We recognise how important this matter is to Miss A and the significance of the impact the events have had on her and her family. We thank her for bringing this complaint to our attention.
1. We have carefully considered Miss A’s complaint about the SCAS. We have decided not to consider the complaint further. This is because we consider Miss A could take legal action on the matter she has brought to us.
2. We are sorry to hear about the circumstances that have brought Miss A to our Office. We offer Miss A and her family our deepest condolences for the loss of her son, Mr E.