The doctor did not listen to Mrs B in her appointment on the 14 March 2023 about her previous operation and failed to locate the records.
18. 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 they could not complain earlier.
19. The date of this event was 14 March 2023. We considered the date Mrs B knew she had cause to complain. Mrs B said she went home and cried after this appointment because she felt she was accused of being a liar. This means Mrs B’s date of knowledge was 14 March 2023. Mrs B brought this complaint to us in March 2025, two years after her date of knowledge. We have discussed this with Mrs B to understand the reasons she did not bring this complaint to us sooner.
20. Mrs B brought this complaint to the Trust in November 2024. The Trust issued its response on 20 March 2025. Mrs B brought her complaint to us on 17 March 2025.
21. We have considered the Trust took five months to respond to Mrs B’s complaint. We can see that Mrs B came to PHSO as soon as she received the Trust’s response. We can see this five-month delay was out of Mrs B’s control.
22. Mrs B complained to the Trust in November 2024, 18 months after the events. Mrs B said she was very upset when she got home from the appointment on 14 March 2023. This means Mrs B knew she could complain in March 2023.
23. We asked Mrs B why she did not complain to the Trust for 18 months. Mrs B said her chronic illness and mental health prevented her being able to make a complaint.
24. Mrs B told us she suffered from depression and long-term health conditions between March 2023 and November 2024. We do not underestimate how this impacted on her day-to-day life. Mrs B’s health conditions were not a barrier to her attending work or an important event away from home. For this reason, we consider that these health conditions were not a barrier to her complaining for 20 months between March 2023 and November 2024. Taking the impact of these health conditions into account, we think Mrs B could have complained much sooner than she did.
25. We asked Mrs B why she felt able to complain in November 2024. Mrs B said she became angry about the situation and realised she wanted to take action. Mrs B complained in November 2024 while still living with these health conditions. It is reasonable to say she could have complained sooner after the events in March 2023, which would have given opportunity for her to approach us within our time limit.
26. We have considered Mrs B’s reasons, and we do not think it is reasonable to put aside the time limit.
The Trust did not communicate the eight-month waiting time for a pre-op appointment.
27. 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.
28. Mrs B expected to wait four months after her first appointment for her pre-op appointment. This means Mrs B believed she would have her pre-op appointment by October 2023. Mrs B’s date of knowledge was October 2023, and she could have complained to the Trust from this time.
29. Mrs B brought this complaint to us in March 2025, 18 months after she knew she could complain. We have discussed this with Mrs B to understand the reasons why she did not bring this complaint to us sooner.
30. We have seen Mrs B brought this complaint to the Trust in November 2024. The Trust issued its response on 20 March 2025. Mrs B came to us with her complaint on 17 March 2025.
31. We have considered that the Trust took five months to respond to Mrs B’s complaint. We can see Mrs B came to PHSO as soon as she received the Trust’s response. We can see this five-month delay was due to the Trust considering and responding to the complaint.
32. Mrs B complained to the Trust in November 2024, 13 months after her the events. We asked Mrs B why she did not complain to the Trust for 13 months. Mrs B said her chronic illness and mental health prevented her being able to make a complaint.
33. As set out in paragraphs 23-25, above, we asked Mrs B about the reason for her delay. Mrs B complained in November 2024 while still living with these health conditions. It is reasonable to say she could have complained sooner after October 2023. This would have given Mrs B the opportunity to approach us within our time limit.
34. We have considered Mrs B’s reasons, and we do not think it is reasonable to put aside the time limit.
Mrs B’s operation was wrongly cancelled on the 13 June 2024 and Mrs B had to wait longer than she should have for her prolapse operation.
35. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is unreasonable in the circumstances. We have discussed this with Mrs B to understand her case and the outcomes she wants. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look in to.
36. We consider someone to have a legal action when we see evidence of potential clinical negligence. In law, this is when the actions, or non-actions, of a health care professional do not meet the level of care expected. This then results in physical injury, psychological injury, or loss.
37. The NHS has a duty of care when someone is on a wait list, and they should be able to treat them within this time frame. If Mrs B’s operation was wrongly cancelled, or she had to wait longer than necessary, this could amount to a clinical negligence claim.
38. Mrs B experienced physical injury, she had prolonged pain on a daily basis. Mrs B also had psychological injury as she developed depression. This could amount to a clinical negligence claim. According to the law, it is appropriate for Mrs B to explore the legal route before we consider her complaint.
39. We agreed with Mrs B that she could have two weeks to make some enquiries with solicitors and find out if she had a legal claim. In this time, Mrs B told us she spoke to three solicitors. Two of these solicitors have not responded to Mrs B’s enquiries yet. The third solicitor said Mrs B had a case, but they would not be able to take it on. We understand this is disappointing for Mrs B.
40. We have to consider that other legal firms may have different thresholds for the cases they can take on. Although this enquiry was unsuccessful, this solicitor response confirmed that according to our law, Mrs B has a cause of action. Mrs B still has two outstanding enquiries. This means the legal route is an option for Mrs B.
41. It is important that Mrs B fully explores her options now while she is well within the three-year time limit to bring clinical negligence claims.
42. We also considered the outcome Mrs B was looking for. Mrs B is looking for £12,500. Mrs B is not looking for any other outcomes. This is more than we would likely recommend for Mrs B, having considered the impact the claimed failings had on her in line with our Severity of Injustice scale. The courts can normally recommend higher amounts of financial remedy than us. Mrs B has a better chance of getting the financial remedy she wants by taking legal action.
43. We considered whether it was reasonable to expect Mrs B to take this legal route. We asked Mrs B if she had any barriers to the legal route.
44. Mrs B said she did not want to go through the legal route because every time she spoke about the events, she found it difficult, and she became upset. Mrs B said this impacted her mental health.
45. We have considered Mrs B’s reasons. We have also considered that she has been able to discuss her complaint with PHSO intake staff and the caseworker. We have also considered that she has been able to discuss her complaint with three solicitors which involved speaking about the events.
46. While we acknowledge talking about the events is difficult for Mrs B, we can see she has been able to speak about her complaint on several occasions. We consider that her mental health has not been a barrier to her complaint up until this point. We have not seen any new information that her mental health has deteriorated so that it is now a barrier.
47. We consider that it is reasonable to expect Mrs B to wait for the outcomes of her legal enquiries before we consider her complaint further.
Conclusion
48. We appreciate Mrs B has been through a difficult two years and experienced significant health conditions affecting her daily life. We want to assure Mrs B that if the legal route is unsuccessful, we can consider reopening the second two parts of her complaint.