4. Mr B complains that the Practice communicated poorly about his registration, specifically that it registered him and then de-registered him.
5. Mr B says he has missed out on over £13,000 in compensation. He also says it has caused him undue stress and time in chasing who is responsible.
6. By bringing his complaint to us, Mr B would like the Practice to acknowledge its failings which resulted in a delay in his compensation.
7. In 2021 Mr B began accessing GP services under a Special Allocation Scheme (SAS). This is a scheme where patients can receive GP care in a secure setting if they have been removed from another GP practice’s list. Patients on the SAS can usually only return to standard GP services once the SAS scheme have assessed that this is appropriate.
8. In 2024 Mr B asked the Practice to register him as a patient. In February 2024 the Practice confirmed he was registered as their patient. In June 2024 he asked the Practice to complete some forms for him so he could seek compensation for being a victim of the infected blood scandal.
9. On 2 July 2024, Mr B received a text message from the Practice explaining there was a duplicate registration and that he was still registered under another practice in the Merseyside area. This message explained the Practice had to deregister him.
10. On 8 July, the Practice said PCSE had advised that it was not authorised to register him, because he was registered with another Practice under the SAS scheme. Later that month PCSE wrote to Mr B’s previous GP asking them to advise on his Special Allocations Scheme (SAS) status as its system still showed he was on the SAS.
11. On 25 July 2024 Mr B submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) to the Practice. The Practice replied on 19 August explaining it was no longer the data controller and therefore had no access to his medical records. The email explained that at the time of his registration there were no alerts to say he was registered elsewhere under the SAS. The Practice said PCSE notified them later that he was already registered at another practice under the SAS, and told the Practice to de-register him.
12. On 24 December 2024, the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) wrote to Mr B explaining that it had asked the Practice to look again at the issues he had raised about his SAR. In an email of 27 December 2024, the Practice informed Mr B of the email from ICO where it asked the Practice to inform him if it was no longer the data controller. It forwarded on its email that was sent on 19 August to explain this again.
13. Mr B is unhappy with the outcome of the final response from the Practice on 27 December 2024 and he therefore brings his case to us.
De-registration from the Practice
16. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation into 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.
17. Mr B complains that the Practice confirmed his registration but then de-registered him. In June 2024 he asked the Practice to complete some forms for him so he could get compensation for being a victim of the Infected Blood Scandal through WIBSS. Mr B says the Practice de-registered him because he needed these forms completing.
18. We recognise Mr B feels the Practice de-registered him only because he asked for the blood scandal forms to be completed. We also understand the stress and time it has taken Mr B in trying to register with a GP to have these forms completed.
19. The Practice explained it de-registered Mr B as it was instructed by PCSE. PCSE is the responsible body for processing new patient registrations and de-registrations at GP practices. The Practice say that when Mr B registered, there was no flag to say he was on the SAS. When the Practice requested Mr B’s previous medical records, PCSE contacted the Practice to instruct it to de-register Mr B. PCSE told the Practice it was a dual registration and that he was registered elsewhere under the SAS.
20. Mr B also took his complaint to the local commissioning team. Its response explains that when a patient is on the SAS initially attempts to register with another GP practice, there is not a warning on the system to say the patient is registered with another practice. Once the registration is received via a GP link, (a service which passes messages between a GP system and the central NHS systems to ensure they both match) a flag is put on the patient’s record to inform PCSE that the patient is subject to the SAS. PCSE then reject the registration and tell the practice to remove the registration.
21. The NHS GP registration digital guide 2025 states a person cannot be registered with more than one GP practice at a time.
22. We understand the frustration this has caused Mr B when trying to have the forms completed for the WIBSS and have taken this into account. Our NHS complaints standards say when an organisation investigates a complaint it should: ‘explain why things went wrong and identify suitable ways to put things right for people.’ While the Practice appear to have followed instructions from PCSE, it explains why it had to de-register Mr B and contact PCSE to help give Mr B a clear understanding of what went wrong.
23. In considering all of the above, the Practice have acted on PCSE’s instructions and in line with the process of patient removal set out by PCSE. We therefore see no indications of failings in the Practice’s actions.
24. The difficulties Mr B has experienced in trying to register with a GP are to do with the restrictions of the SAS and not the responsibility of the Practice.
25. We thank Mr B for taking the time to bring his complaint to our attention and hope we have explained our decision clearly.
1. We have carefully considered Mr B’s complaint about the Practice. Mr B told us the Practice confirmed his registration and then de-registered him when he asked it to complete forms to help him seek compensation from the Welsh Infected Blood Support Scheme (WIBSS).
2. We are sorry to hear of the time and stress this issue has caused Mr B and we appreciate the importance of this complaint to him. We would like to reassure him we have thoroughly considered his concerns.
3. We have not seen indications of failings in the Practice’s actions. The evidence indicates the Practice acted appropriately and in line with guidance from Primary Care Support England (PCSE – an organisation that supports primary care providers such as GPs). As such, we have seen no indication that the Practice did anything wrong and we will not take any further action on the complaint. The reasons for this will be explained below.