15. 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.
16. We have discussed this with Mrs V to understand the reasons why she could not complain to us within our one-year time frame. We have also considered the time it took for the GST Trust to provide its complaint response.
17. Mrs V told us she became aware of problems with the GST Trust’s provision of care to Mr W on 9 August 2023. This is therefore her date of knowledge regarding her complaint that Mr W contracted sepsis.
18. This means for Mrs W’s complaint about the GST Trust to be in time she should have brought it to us by 9 August 2024.
19. In her complaint to the GST Trust, Mrs V stated that on the morning of Mr W’s death, she became aware the transport team had forgotten to connect Mr W’s chest drain. This makes her date of knowledge for her complaint about Barts Trust to be 19 August 2023.
20. This means for Mrs W’s complaint about Barts Trust to be in time she should have brought it to us by 19 August 2024.
21. Mrs V brought her complaint to us on 28 March 2025. This means her complaint about the GST Trust is seven months and three weeks outside of the time limit. It also means her complaint about Barts Trust is seven months and one week outside of the time limit.
22. The evidence we have available to us shows Mrs V complained to the GST Trust on 30 October 2023.
23. The GST Trust provided an initial response, including a response from Barts Trust, on 12 February 2024.
24. Mrs V returned to the GST Trust with further concerns about both the GST Trust and Barts Trust on 9 September 2024, seven months after the GST Trust provided its initial response.
25. The GST Trust provided a final response on 27 January 2025.
26. On 28 March 2025, Mrs V brought her complaint to us. This was two months after the GST Trust sent its final response.
27. We first considered the time the GST Trust took to respond to Mrs V’s complaints.
28. The GST Trust took three months and two weeks to respond to Mrs V’s initial complaint. Mrs V’s initial complaint raised multiple issues including inpatient care, and the GST Trust’s preceding outpatient care. The GST Trust provided a detailed response, including gathering information from a second organisation. Therefore, we consider this a reasonable response time.
29. The GST Trust took three months and three weeks to respond to Mrs V’s further concerns. We also consider this a reasonable response time.
30. This is because GST Trust needed time to review its previous response, along with a further consideration of Mr W’s records and gathering further responses from staff.
31. We next weighed up whether it would be reasonable to expect Mrs V to have brought her complaint to us sooner.
32. We discussed this with Mrs V to understand the reasons for her delay in bringing her complaint to us.
33. We understand the period after Mr W’s death on 19 August 2023 was a very difficult time for Mrs V as she was grieving the loss of her father. Mrs V explained that while Mr W was in hospital she was concentrating on being there for him. She also explained that after he died, she was dealing with the administration that comes after death and Mr W’s funeral.
34. We appreciate how difficult it is when a loved one is seriously ill and passes away. We consider it reasonable that Mrs V was unable to complain to the GST Trust until 27 October 2023.
35. We asked Mrs V why it took from 12 February 2024 until 9 September 2024 to raise further concerns with the GST Trust.
36. Mrs V explained it took a long time to get Mr W’s medical records, which she had requested in her initial complaint letter. She told us that once she did receive the records there were over 1000 pages. She explained it took a long time to go through these and that during this time she had a mental breakdown from the grief.
37. We understand Mrs V’s desire to see Mr W’s medical records. However, we cannot say she needed these to respond to the GST Trust with her further concerns. This is because the complaints process does not require complainants to investigate the GST Trust’s provision of care themselves.
38. We can see the GST Trust provided a thorough initial response with detailed information about Mr W’s care and treatment. It also invited Mrs V to contact it should she have specific concerns with the content of the response. We would therefore expect Mrs V to follow the complaints procedure, as set out by the GST Trust, and have responded promptly with her concerns.
39. Had Mrs V seen anything in Mr W’s records that prompted additional concerns, she would have had the opportunity to complain about these separately.
40. We are very sorry to hear that Mrs V suffered a mental breakdown from grief while going through Mr W’s medical records. We cannot imagine how difficult these must have been to read.
41. It is our view Mrs V did not need Mr W’s medical records to make her complaint. Therefore, we cannot say the Trust’s handling of her father’s record request prevented her from raising her further concerns earlier.
42. Mrs V also told us she was waiting for a response from Trust B, which she had expected to be included in the GST Trust’s response.
43. We can see she received a response from Trust B on 8 April 2024, five months prior to sending the GST Trust her further concerns.
44. The further concerns Mrs V raised with the GST Trust were separable from the issues she was waiting for a response on, from Trust B. This is because they concerned issues specific to the GST Trust and Barts Trust. Therefore, we cannot say that waiting for Trust B’s response prevented Mrs V from raising further concerns with the GST Trust.
45. Overall, we cannot say that it was reasonable for Mrs V to wait until 9 September to raise further concerns with the GST Trust. This is because the evidence shows the Trust’s initial response provided her with all the information she needed to raise her further concerns.
46. We next asked Mrs V why it took her until 28 March 2025 to bring her complaint to PHSO.
47. Mrs V told us that she believed she had 12 months from the date of the GST Trust’s final response to bring her complaint to us.
48. The GST Trust’s final response to Mrs V states, ‘It is important you make your complaint as soon as you receive our final response because there are time limits for the Ombudsman to look into complaints.’
49. Our website also sets out clearly that complaints should be brought to us within one year of the complainant’s date of knowledge.
50. We have seen no evidence to indicate Mrs V would have been unable to understand or access the above information. Therefore, we cannot say it would be reasonable to put aside the two-month delay in bringing her complaint to us.
51. Overall, we think Mrs V had sufficient information to be aware she was unhappy with the GST Trust’s response on 12 February 2024 and could have responded to it sooner. We also think Mrs V had sufficient information available to her on 27 January 2025 to understand our time limits.
52. We can see there was an overall delay of nine months in Mrs V bringing her complaint to PHSO. We think had Mrs V taken the opportunity to act sooner, her complaint about both the GST Trust and Barts Trust would have been inside of the time limit.
53. This means we have not seen strong enough reasons to set aside our time limit in this case. Therefore, we are taking no further action on Mrs V’s complaint about the GST Trust or Barts Trust.
54. We recognise Mr W’s treatment and death was distressing for Mrs V and are sorry for her loss. In making this decision, we do not intend to undermine her experience.