Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust

UHL 4. Mrs G and Mr J complain following their brother’s admission in January 2022, UHL did not investigate why he was retaining urine. They are also concerned UHL kept him catheterised and made him use incontinence pads unnecessarily.

5. Mrs G and Mr J say their brother’s learning disability was used to reach incorrect conclusions and his needs were overlooked. They believe he suffered avoidable distress and indignity, and say he experienced urinary tract infections (UTIs) for the rest of his life.

6. Mrs G and Mr J want UHL to acknowledge its failings, apologise and improve its service.

LPT 7. Mrs G and Mr J complain following their brother’s admission in February 2022, LPT did not support him with his hygiene needs and made him use incontinence pads unnecessarily due to their brother’s learning disability.

8. Mrs G and Mr J believe Mr M suffered avoidable distress and indignity, and say he experienced urinary tract infections (UTIs) for the rest of his life.

9. Mrs G and Mr J want LPT to acknowledge its failings, apologise and improve its service.

10. We include this brief background to put the complaint into context. It is not intended to reflect all of the detail Mrs G and Mr J provided about what were clearly challenging periods. It reflects information they gave us and the complaint responses they received.

11. Mr M was admitted to one of UHL’s hospitals on 5 January 2022. He was transferred to another UHL hospital later that month then moved to a LPT hospital in February. LPT discharged Mr M to a care home in April 2022.

12. Mrs G and Mr J complained to UHL via LPT in January 2023. UHL responded at the end of March. This response covered care from 5 January to 22 February 2022. The letter said a separate response from LPT was enclosed, but there was no enclosure.

13. Mrs G and Mr J wrote back to UHL on 3 July 2023 and asked for LPT to respond to their concerns. UHL said it thought LPT had already resolved their concerns verbally. LPT sent its response to UHL in mid-July. Mr M sadly died on 18 July.

14. UHL shared LPT’s response with Mrs G and Mr J in mid-January 2024. They brought their complaints to us in late December 2024.

17. 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 to do so. We have discussed this with Mrs G and Mr J to understand the reasons why they could not do so. We have also considered the time each organisation has taken to respond to Mrs G and Mr J.

18. We understand Mrs G and Mr J had concerns about the care Mr M was receiving at the time of the events. Their concerns evolved over time but they had seen signs that things had gone wrong during, or by the time he was discharged from, each of his hospital admissions.

UHL

19. Mrs G and Mr J say the first UHL hospital immediately catheterised Mr M and made him use pads. They would have been aware of this issue in January 2022. They say they complained about issues at the second hospital, like poor management of Mr M’s hearing aids, when they visited. This would have been in January and February 2022.

20. By the time Mrs G and Mr J brought their complaint to us in December 2024, it was around one year and ten months (22 months) outside of our time limit.

21. Mrs G and Mr J complained to UHL approximately 11 months after their brother’s discharge from its hospitals. The NHS Complaints Regulations say organisations should respond to complaints within six months. UHL responded relatively quickly, within three months.

22. Mrs G and Mr J replied to UHL around three months after its response. They received a response in January, in the six month timeframe set out in the NHS Complaints Regulations. Mrs G and Mr J appear to have been making attempts to progress the complaint in a timely manner until the 11.5 month gap between getting the final response and coming to us.

23. We appreciate what Mrs G and Mr J have told us about their caring commitments and work responsibilities, as well as collating information to submit their multiple complaints. We understand Mr M was in hospital again later in 2022 and they made arrangements to move him to a more local nursing home in May 2023.

24. While we recognise how important they felt it was to make a comprehensive submission, we are unable to say we should put the time limit to one side on this basis. The travelling commitments relating to Mr M’s care would not have been a factor by the time Mrs G and Mr J received the final complaint responses in January 2024.

25. Had Mrs G and Mr J brought their complaint to us more promptly following this, it would not have been so far outside of our time limit. We may therefore have reached a different conclusion about exercising our discretion. We understand Mrs G and Mr J chose to make separate complaints about aspects of Mr M’s care but this is not a requirement.

26. Based on the available information, we cannot say there is a good reason to put our time limit to one side and look at this complaint now.

LPT

27. Mrs G and Mr J say their brother remained catheterised when he was at LPT and by the time he was discharged, it was no longer a realistic prospect that he would regain continence. They would therefore have known there was an issue by then, in April 2022.

28. This means by the time Mrs G and Mr J brought their complaint to us in December 2024, it was at least one year and eight months (20 months) outside of our time limit.

29. Mrs G and Mr J complained about LPT in January 2023, approximately eight months after their brother’s discharge from its hospital. We appreciate Mrs G and Mr J did not receive LPT’s written response until UHL shared this in January 2024. We acknowledge Mrs G and Mr J could not bring their complaint to us until they had a final response.

30. As we have explained above, Mrs G and Mr J did not bring their complaint to us until December 2024. This 11.5 month period after the final response is a significant factor in the complaint being so far outside of our time limit and we cannot say there is a good reason for the delay.

31. We appreciate Mrs G and Mr J may have been focusing on different complaints. We understand some of their other concerns were escalated to the final stage of the complaints process before we received these complaints. Had these complaints been submitted at the same time, the complaint may not have fallen so far outside our time limit.

32. For the reasons set out above, we cannot justify putting the time limit aside to consider any of the complaints further. We appreciate this is not the outcome Mrs G and Mr J wanted. We would like to offer our condolences for their loss and we hope we have clearly explained why we have decided not to investigate this complaint.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs G and Mr J’s complaint about the care UHL and LPT provided to their brother, Mr M.

2. We were very sorry to hear Mrs G and Mr J’s concerns about the care their brother received. It is clear how important this complaint is to them and we do not underestimate how distressing they found their experiences. We do not wish to detract from this.

3. Unfortunately, the complaint falls outside of our time limit and we have decided there is no good reason for us to put our time limit aside to consider it further.