13. The Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 (the law), section 9 (4), says a person needs to make their complaint to us within a year of 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.
14. Mr V attended the Trust between 3 February and 11 February 2022 with a right leg rash and symptoms of vomiting, fever, and confusion. He received treatment at the specialised hub and the intermediate care service at the Trust. Mr V’s records show on 4 February his primary diagnosis was cellulitis (an infection of the deep layers of the skin).
15. As above, Mr V complained to the Trust about his treatment on 10 January 2023 and received its response on 15 March 2023. He brought his complaint to us on 20 May 2023 however his complaint was not ready for us.
16. He went back to the Trust on 15 June which responded on 6 July. Mr V contacted us again on 6 September to inform us he had the final response.
17. We spoke with Mr V and his advocate, Mrs E, to understand when they became aware of their reason to complain. They initially explained Mr V was not aware of the problem until May/June 2022, when he says he started to serious experience health problems because of what happened. We are sorry to hear about how significantly this affected him.
18. When we discussed this further with them, they acknowledged he was unhappy with the Trust’s treatment of him at the time, in February 2022, and knew he had reason to complain then. It is important to note that our time limit starts from the date a person became of their reason to complain, not when they became aware of the impact of what happened.
19. To be within our time limit, Mr V therefore needed to complain to us by February 2023. As above, his complaint was not ready for us until 6 September 2023. He is therefore approximately six months outside of our time limit.
20. There appear to be several periods of delay where Mr V did not progress his complaint. These are:
• between February 2022 and his initial complaint to the Trust in January 2023 • between the Trust’s first complaint response on 15 March 2023 and him first bringing the complaint to us on 20 May 2023 • between the Trust’s final response in July 2023 and him bringing the complaint back to us on 6 September 2023.
21. We have discussed this with Mr V and Mrs E to understand if there are any reasons he could not bring the complaint to us sooner.
22. Mr V explained that he did not complain to the Trust quickly initially because he was unwell. He explained he decided to pursue the complaint in November 2022 when he was well enough, and it was not written until January 2023, as he wanted to get his life back on track first.
23. He also explained his advocate requested his medical records from the Trust on 20 May 2023. He explained the Trust did not provide this information until September 2023 and it was incomplete.
24. Mr V explained that he did not approach us quickly after the Trust’s final response in July because his advocate was unwell, and he did not how to bring it back. He explained the advocate then tried to relog this on the PHSO website portal but was unable to do so.
25. The time taken by the Trust is also a factor in our time limit consideration. It took the Trust two months to respond from Mr V’s initial complaint on 10 January 2023. When he made a further complaint on 15 June, it responded 21 days later on 6 July.
26. The Trust’s complaints process therefore accounts for almost three months delay in the complaint reaching us. This is a comparatively small amount of time considered against the periods of delay we have identified above.
27. We recognise Mr V has been through a difficult time with the health issues he has experienced.
28. We can only set aside our time limit for strong reasons, and we need to be satisfied the person could not have complained sooner. We do not consider this to be the case here.
29. Mr V was aware on 11 February 2022 he was unhappy with his treatment. He had the assistance of his advocate so we consider he could likely have brought his complaint to the Trust sooner. From our discussions with Mr V, we understand his advocate was involved in talking to the Trust and his GP about his care at the time of the events.
30. We acknowledge there was a three-to-four-month delay in the Trust providing Mr V with his medical records. We consider Mr V did not need to see his medical records to be able to complain, as he was aware he was unhappy with the treatment he had received at the time. We also cannot see that this delay impacted his ability to progress the complaint, as he brought his complaint to the Trust, and to us, before he received them.
31. We are also sorry to hear his advocate was unwell when he received the Trust’s final response. The complaint records we have seen show his advocate contacted the Trust about potential legal action shortly after receiving the final response. It therefore appears that they may have been able to help him bring the complaint to us at this time.
32. We also consider they could have called our office for advice if they were having problems resubmitting the complaint, and we would have considered the date of this call as the date the complaint reached us.
33. We have considered all of Mr V’s reasons for the delay however we are not persuaded there is a strong reason to set aside our time limit. Mr V has not provided us with strong enough reasons for his delay or that were exceptional circumstances which would lead us to set aside a seven-month delay.
34. It appears that Mr V could have pursued his complaint with the Trust sooner, and brought the complaint to us more quickly. It is clear from the complaints correspondence that Mr V was made aware of the importance of pursuing the complaint quickly.
35. We recognise he went through a difficult experience and the significant impact his health issues caused him. We consider Mr V’s complaint to be out of time and we will take no further action.