London Ambulance Service NHS Trust

3. Miss Y complains on 16 March 2020 the Trust incorrectly categorised a 999 call, which led to an avoidable delay in its attendance to her father, Mr Y. Miss Y says, sadly this resulted in his avoidable death.

4. Miss Y also complains on 6 June 2024, following NHS resolutions (NHSR) investigation into the events, the Trust told her its original offer of £9950 compensation had lapsed.

5. Miss Y says the family are left without her father, his income, or any substantial financial settlement. She also says the experience throughout her complaint has compounded the grief for her and her family.

6. Miss Y would like the Trust to reinstate its original financial offer of £9950 and a personal apology in recognition of the family’s experience on that day, and the impact of the events that happened.

7. On 16 March 2020 Mr Y’s family had cause to call an ambulance. Complaint investigations by the Trust (concluding in December 2020) and NHSR (concluding in April 2024) agreed that the categorisation of the call was incorrect, and that the incorrect categorisation resulted in a delay in an ambulance arriving.

8. Mr Y sadly died. Miss Y says his death could have been avoided if the categorisation had been correct.

9. Following its initial complaint investigation the Trust offered Miss Y a financial remedy of £9950. Miss Y felt a larger remedy was justified and she made a claim to NHSR, a branch of the Department of Health and Social Care that is responsible for handling these types of claims for other NHS organisations.

10. NHSR made an offer to Miss Y as part of a full and final settlement agreement. Miss Y told us at this time she discussed the original offer from the Trust with NHSR, and it led her to believe the original offer from the Trust was in addition to the settlement.

11. Miss Y accepted the settlement agreement from NHSR. She then returned to the Trust to accept its offer of £9950. The Trust told Miss Y this offer had lapsed. Miss Y wants the Trust to pay its original offer.

Delay in response

13. The Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 (the law) says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person had the option to take legal action, unless we consider this was unreasonable in the circumstances.

14. Miss Y had the option to take legal action to resolve her complaint and she took it. She accepted a settlement offer that covers ‘any and all claims against [the Trust] in relation to the death of Mr Y’. This means the law prevents us from looking at these issues again and recommending any further financial remedies.

15. Miss Y told us she is also seeking a personal apology from the Trust. We do not underestimate the serious impact the events have had on Miss Y and her family, and we recognise how hard it has been to grieve whilst pursuing this complaint.

16. Our review of the correspondence shows the Trust has provided several written apologies in its responses. We understand why Miss Y is looking for more, we cannot say the Trust’s written apologies fall so far short of our expectations that it is appropriate for us to do further work to obtain additional apologies. We hope Miss Y and her family understand the reasons for our decision.

Lapse of original offer

17. Before we conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.

18. We have looked in detail at the settlement agreement. There is no reference to the original offer from the Trust in the settlement agreement. Additionally, as mentioned above, the offer from NHSR was considered full and final settlement for all claims relating to the complaint about Mr Y’s death.

19. We recognise Miss Y’s account of her communication with NHSR and we understand why Miss Y thought the Trust should pay the original offer. The terms of the settlement agreement mean there is no requirement for the Trust to honour its original offer. For this reason, there is no indication anything was wrong with the Trust’s decision to consider the original offer lapsed.

20. We were very sorry to hear about the circumstances of Mr Y’s death. We hope our explanation helps Miss Y understand what has happened, and this helps her and the family move on.

1. We have carefully considered Miss Y’s complaint about London Ambulance Service NHS Trust (the Trust). We understand how important this matter is to Miss Y and her family and appreciate how difficult it has been for them pursuing this complaint.

2. We have seen Miss Y has accepted a full and final financial settlement relating to her complaint about her father’s death. We have not seen any signs the Trust did something seriously wrong when it told Miss Y its original offer had lapsed. This means we will not consider her complaint any further.