9. The Health Service Commissioners Act (the law) 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 that justified the delay in a complaint being raised within twelve months.
10. The events complained about happened on February 2022. Mr I states his date of knowledge that something was wrong was 19 February 2022. This is the day of Mrs I’s death.
11. From this date of knowledge, Mr I then raised a complaint with the Trust on 24 June 2022. This is approximately four months after the date of knowledge. The organisation issued its response on 21 September 2022. This is approximately three months after receiving the complaint.
12. Mr I then raised a further complaint with the Trust on 27 June 2023. This is nine months after receiving the initial response letter.
13. The Trust issued its second response on 5 March 2024. This is nine months after receiving Mr I’s complaint. Mr I then raised a third complaint on 4 June 2024. This is one month after receiving the second Trust letter.
14. The Trust then offered Mr I a meeting on 19 June which did not take place. The Trust confirmed the local resolution was complete on 27 June 2024. Therefore, we consider Mr I was aware the local resolution was concluded on this date and the next step would be to bring his complaint to us promptly.
15. Mr I brought his complaint to us on 9 September 2024. By this we mean he provided all the necessary information to us and his complaint was ready to be considered by the Ombudsman.
16. Mr I should have brought the complaint to us by 19 February 2023. The complaint was received by us on 9 September 2024 around 19 months out of time.
17. We identified the following delays:
• four months from date of knowledge to raising a complaint with the Trust • three months for Trust to handle the complaint • nine months for Mr I to raise a second complaint • nine months for Trust to provide a second response letter • one month for Mr I to raise a third complaint • two months for Mr I to bring his complaint to us.
18. We discussed the reasons for the four months taken from date of knowledge to raising a complaint with the Trust with Mr I to better understand the delay.
19. Mr I explained the delay here was because he:
• was grieving • contacted the Trust on 25 February to make a complaint but was told to contact Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS) – the Trust’s complaints handling team • contacted the coroner in March • contacted the advocate in March to start the complaint • was not told there are time limits.
20. We recognise grief can manifest differently in everyone and acknowledge this can cause delays in bringing a complaint. Here we can see Mr I was able to engage with the Trust, his advocate and the coroner. That being said we do not fault Mr I for this and consider accept his reasons for the four months taken to raise a complaint.
21. Overall, it took the Trust around three months to provide an initial response to complete local resolution. We recognise Mr I had no control over this delay. We acknowledge the time taken by the Trust to provide a response but note this is not the main reason or cause for Ms A’s delay in bringing his complaint to us.
22. Mr I then took nine months to raise a further complaint on 27 June 2023.
23. Mr I explained the time taken here was mainly because of delays caused by his advocate.
24. Mr I explained after receiving the September Trust response, Mr I’s advocate had telephone call with him on 30 September 2022. The advocate left it with Mr I to draft a further letter regarding dissatisfaction with the response.
25. Mr I then provided the letter to the advocate on 21 October 2022 (around one month later). Mr I said this was because he liaised with his sons each step of the way with the complaint and he required extra time to do this.
26. The advocate then reviewed and edited draft had a call with Mr I on 18 November 2022. The advocate’s entry on 8 December was that changes to letter will be made in line with Mr I’s feedback. Mr I said the advocate did not send off the confirmed letter to Trust. This was because due to illness, Mr I’s advocate resigned from the advocacy service in December 2022.
27. Mr I become aware of the advocate leaving when his new advocate took over the case and contacted him on 19 March 2023. This is four months after Mr I’s last call with the old advocate in November 2022.
28. Mr I confirmed the last email received from the old advocate was on 18 November 2022 and first email received from new advocate was 19 March 2023. He explained within these four months he made a few calls to speak with old advocate however he did not get a reply back to these. He explained he did not find it odd that he may not get a reply weekly, as the old advocate only worked two days per week.
29. Mr I also explained the advocacy team delayed assigning him a new advocate and this only happened on 28 March 2023. The new advocate sent the confirmed second complain to the Trust on 20 June 2023.
30. Here we can see Mr I’s second complaint was delayed because his old advocate left in December and a new advocate was not assigned until March. We do not hold Mr I responsible for the delay caused by the advocacy service. We do note there was a period where, we consider Mr I could have been more active in pursuing of his complaint.
31. Our starting expectation is that a complainant is responsible for the timely management of a complaint to us within the twelve-month time frame. It is their responsibility to be aware of this and not that of an advocate.
32. Where matters around delays in advocacy were presenting, we would expect the complainant to consider informed choices in regards of their approach to complaining. For example, had Mr I been aware of the time limit to complaining and then considered the advocacy service was contributing significantly to the delay in complaining, then an email to the Ombudsman to raise concerns and seek clarity on what steps to take may have assisted in managing this period within a shorter time frame.
33. There are some exceptional occasions where we may consider taking a complaint on behalf of a complainant depending on the individual circumstances. We have not seen any evidence that inward bound enquiries were made to our service, or a consideration of time factored into Mr I’s managing of his complaint or the option to enquire of this made to expedite the complaint.
34. We recognise it took the Trust nine months to provide a second response to Mr I’s complaint. We recognise he had no control over this delay. We acknowledge the time taken by the Trust to provide a response. We note this is not the main reason or cause for Mr I’s delay in bringing his complaint to us as by the time the Trust received his second complaint (June 2023), it was already out of time by four months.
35. Mr I then took one month to raise a third complaint with the Trust. He explained this was because he needed to discuss the complaint with his sons, liaising with his advocate who needed time to draft and edit the complaint letter.
36. Mr I brought his complaint to us on 9 September 2024. This is around two months after the Trust informed him on 27 June 2024 local resolution was complete and the next steps in the complaints process is to contact the Ombudsman.
37. We discussed the reasons for the delay with him to better understand this.
38. Mr I explained the delay here was because the advocate was on annual leave for two weeks in the first half of July. He explained he was then in email contact with them to ensure completion of all parts of the Ombudsman form. Mr I said the advocate emailed him the fully completed PHSO form on 8 August 2024 for signing, dating and sending to PHSO.
39. We have reviewed the timeline of the case history on our IT system again. The first contact we can see from Mr I’s advocate is on 19 June, when local resolution was ongoing.
40. The advocate then emailed us on 14 August with the complaint form and Trust response. We can then see our intake team was in contact with the advocate to determine if the complaint was ready for us due to outstanding questions/concern that have not been addressed by the Trust.
41. Out intake team then contacted the Trust to confirm if it will answer these. The Trust responded on 27 August confirming local resolution is completed.
42. We recognise Mr I sent us his complaint on 14 August, however his complaint was not ready for us to consider at that date. By this we mean, due to outstanding question we had to confirm local resolution has been exhausted.
43. Even if we take 14 August as the date the complaint was ready for us, this is around one month and a half after receiving the Trust final response.
44. We recognise Mr I’s reasons for this delay. As stated earlier our starting expectation is that a complainant is responsible for the timely management of a complaint to us within the twelve-month time frame. It is their responsibility to be aware of this and not that of an advocate.
45. We note for Mr I’s complaint to be ready for us we only needed to see a completed form and the Trust responses. Considering the time it has taken for the local resolution to be exhausted and the previous delays, we would have expected Mr I to bring his complaint to us immediately or shortly after receiving the final response.
46. We do not consider the delays of over one month here are justifiable.
47. We recognise the events complaint about have been very stressful for Mr I. We acknowledge the difficult time he and his family experienced.
48. We have identified a total of 12 months of complaint handling by the Trust which Mr I had no control over.
49. Of the remaining time, we do acknowledge four months to raise a complaint initially owing to grief. Beyond that, there is a specific period we do not feel persuaded in justifying delays. This is the time taken (nine months) to submit a second complaint with the Trust and the time taken to raise a complaint with us.
50. We recognise some of the delay was caused by the advocate and acknowledge there was a period when Mr I was not aware his old advocate left the service.
51. We also recognise Mr I acted in good faith engaging with an advocacy service to assist in his complaint. Ultimately, it is Mr I’s responsibility to manage his complaint within time and make informed choices if the advocacy service is contributing significantly towards his complaint being out of time. We consider he had responsibility to be active in his complaint and take action to comply with the time limit.
52. We also do not consider Mr I’s reasons for the time taken to bring his complaint to us are justifiable. Therefore, we are unable to exercise any discretion in waiving the time bar and, in line with the Health Service Commissions Act, consider the complaint is out of time for our consideration.
53. This marks the end of our consideration of Mr I’s complaint.