9. The law says a person needs to make their complaint to us within a year of becoming aware of the problem. This means we cannot investigate complaints brought to us after one year, unless we consider there is a good reason to.
10. Ms E complained to us on 8 December 2022. By law, Ms E should have complained to us by 20 June 2022. The complaint is out of time by 24 weeks and three days.
11. We have discussed this with Ms E and her advocate to understand the reasons why she did not complain sooner. We have also considered the time the Practice has taken to respond to Ms E.
Delays by the Practice
12. Ms E complained to the Practice on 3 December 2021. It responded on 4 April 2022 which is 19 weeks and two days later. Ms E raised a second complaint with the Practice on 20 September 2022. It responded on 12 October which is three weeks and one day later.
13. The total time taken for investigation is 22 weeks and three days. The first response took much longer than the second response and we understand from Ms E’s advocate this was partly because the vaccination centre had closed, and it took a while to get the records to investigate the concerns.
14. These timescales are within the six months specified in the NHS complaint regulations and we do not consider the time it took the Practice to respond to the complaint to be too long. We recognise Ms E had no control over this delay. However, even if it had responded sooner, it is likely the complaint would still be out of time.
Delays by Ms E
15. Ms E explained the reasons for the delays on her complaint form to us. These were:
‘Delay before my first complaint: - I waited to see if the pain in my arm would disappear.
- I needed to contact a health advocacy organisation.
Delay before my reply to their first response: - I took advice from a health advocate.
Delay before this complaint: - Second response from organisation received 12 October.
- No delay in complaining to you.’
16. Ms E initially complained to the Practice in a letter dated 3 December 2021. This was 24 weeks after she realised on 20 June 2021 she had reason to complain.
17. Ms E said she did not know who to complain to, so we asked her how she had found out. Ms E said she could not remember.
18. We asked if she had spoken to her GP about her pain and if she was having treatment. Ms E said she had told her GP and they were doing nothing about it. We asked when she had been to see her GP about the pain in her arm and she said she could not remember. We then asked her about needing help from an advocate as she had put this on her complaint form, and she said she could not remember if she had it was that long ago.
19. We understand Ms E was distressed following her vaccination on 20 June 2021 and she was experiencing pain in her arm. However, she has not been able to provide us with any reason for the delay in making her complaint to the Practice. Ms E cannot tell us when she went to her GP about her pain in her arm or any details about how she tried to find an advocate to help her. Ms E has also not been able to tell us how she knew where to complain to. We do not consider experiencing pain in her arm would have prevented her from making a complaint and waiting to see if her arm would get better does not justify the significant delay in making her complaint.
20. The next period of delay was after the Practice responded on 4 April 2022, and Ms E complained again in a letter dated 20 September 2022. This was a period of 24 weeks and one day after her first response from the Practice. We asked Ms E what caused the delay.
21. Ms E said it was the advocate’s fault as they were very slow in helping her. We asked if she had contacted the advocate to ask about delays and she said she had not, but they were very slow.
22. We asked Ms E when she had first looked for help from an advocate, and she said when she got her first response and she was not happy with it. We told Ms E that we had contacted the advocate and had been told she first contacted POhWER (a free national advocacy service) in May 2022 for help in taking her complaint further. This was several weeks after the Practice had responded to her complaint.
23. We asked Ms E if there were any significant events at the time that stopped her from complaining or contacting an advocate sooner and she said no, she just did not know what to do.
24. We asked Ms E’s advocate what caused the delay in Ms E’s second complaint being sent to the Practice.
25. The advocate explained Ms E was experiencing ongoing health problems and was receiving very little support from her family. The advocate said once the complaint details were received in the post the complaint letter was written and checked by Ms E.
26. The advocate said the response complaint letter was emailed to the Practice on 23 September, and an acknowledgment of Ms E's complaint was received on 5 October from the Practice.
27. We can see there was a period of at least four weeks before Ms E contacted POhWER to help her with taking her complaint further. While the advocate explained Ms E was experiencing ongoing health problems, Ms E did not provide any details to us about this when we spoke to her. We recognise Ms E does not use email and the advocate was relying on using the post and this would have caused some delays.
28. We do not consider Ms E had such significant health problems to prevent her from contacting the advocate sooner. We do not consider communicating by post would have caused such a significant delay from May to 23 September when the second complaint was sent to the Practice by email.
29. The Practice responded to Ms E’s second complaint on 12 October and Ms E brought her complaint to us on 8 December. This was eight weeks and one day after the final response from the Practice.
30. When we asked Ms E about this delay she said it was not her that caused any delays but her advocate.
31. Ms E’s advocate advised us she contacted them at the end of October, stating she was not happy with the response and would like to take her case to us. After completing the complaint form and attaching all the necessary documents, they were sent to Ms E for checking, and the complaint was sent on 8 December.
32. Having considered all of Ms E’s explanations for the delays, we do not think there is a good reason to set our time limit to one side. It is clear Ms E was instantly aware of her concerns and we cannot see why she did not complain sooner to the Practice. We have seen no evidence of Ms E contacting the advocate to speed up the process. The reasons for the delay provided by Ms E do not explain the significant delay of 24 weeks and three days in the complaint coming to us. We are therefore unable to take any further action on this complaint.