10. The ‘Health Service Commissioners Act 1993’ (the Act) sets out our role, responsibilities, and the things we must consider as the final step in the complaints process.
11. Section 9(4) of the Act says we should not investigate a complaint if it is brought to us more than one year after the affected person first became of their reason to complain, unless we consider there is a good reason to do so.
12. Mr F became aware of the issue on 14 June 2023; this was the date the ear micro-suction procedure took place.
13. With this and the Act in mind, the law says Mr F needed to make his complaint to us within a year of this date (14 June 2024).
14. From the evidence available to us, we can see Mr F initially contacted the patient and liaison service (PALS) in December 2023 to raise concerns about his hearing following the procedure. The concerns raised were sent to the Practice to respond. On 20 December 2023, the Practice responded to PALS explaining Mr F had been referred to an ENT doctor on 1 December 2024 and this appointment took place on 29 May 2024.
15. Mr F raised a further formal complaint on 4 June 2024.
16. On 10 June 2024, the Practice issued its formal complaint response to Mr F and told him he could approach us if he remained dissatisfied.
17. On 19 June 2024, Mr F contacted an independent complaints advocacy for support. Mr F told us there were delays in submitting a further complaint to the Practice because the advocacy service was undergoing organisational changes.
18. On 21 October 2024, the advocacy service supported Mr F in making a further complaint to the Practice.
19. On 4 November 2024, the Practice emailed Mr F’s advocate explaining it had already responded to Mr F twice, firstly on 20 December 2023 via PALS and then again on 10 June 2024. The Practice provided copies of the previous responses to the advocate. Mr F’s advocate forwarded these responses to him on 5 November 2024 and again via post on 21 November 2024.
20. Mr F brought his complaint to us on 20 May 2025, six months after the advocate forwarded on the Practice’s responses, and 11 months outside of our time limit.
21. We have therefore considered the reasons for the delay. We appreciate there was a delay from June to October 2024, when Mr F was seeking advocacy support. We understand there can be a wait for advocacy services, due to its limited capacity. This wait was outside of Mr F’s control. We have therefore used our discretion to put this delay to one side.
22. We have therefore focused our consideration on the period of delay that can be attributed to Mr F, and have considered the reasons why he did not progress his complaint during this time.
23. We have identified one significant gap where Mr F appears to have not been progressed his complaint. This relates to the six months between receiving a copy of the Practice’s response in November 2024 and approaching us in May 2025.
24. We discussed reasons for this delay with Mr F.
25. Mr F has told us he was unsure whether he wished to submit his complaint to us during this period as he was hopeful that his hearing would recover. He told us he attended a hearing test on 5 March 2025 and the results showed his hearing had worsened in his left ear, which prompted him to bring his complaint to us.
26. Mr F could not explain why there was a further delay between his appointment in March 2025 and approaching us in May 2025. He noted he was in remission for lymphoma during this time other than explaining he was still in remission for lymphoma (blood cancer). Whilst we recognise Mr F was not having active treatment at this time, we recognise that remission can cause a range of emotions, from relief to concern about a possible relapse.
Our view
27. We were sorry to hear about how Mr F was affected by his experience. We do not doubt this had been challenging for him.
28. While we recognise the health-related challenges Mr F faced, we can see he was able to submit his complaint promptly in December 2023 and seek support from an advocacy service. This demonstrates his ability to engage with the complaints process during this period.
29. Given Mr F was provided with clear instructions to escalate his complaint to us, we believe it would have been reasonable for him to do so. He demonstrated the ability to engage with other organisations, and we feel he could have contacted us within the required timeframe, either by himself or with support from his advocacy service. We therefore do not see sufficient reason to put this time to one side.
30. We understand Mr F wished to wait for further hearing tests results before bringing his complaint to us. However, our Act says a complaint should be brought to us within a year of the person becoming aware of the issues to be complained about. We can see Mr F became aware of the issues forming his complaint in June 2023. This means he already had sufficient knowledge to progress his complaint at that time.
31. With the above in mind, we have not seen any evidence Mr F’s reasons justify the full extent of his delay in bringing his complaint to us. We have identified a significant gap where Mr F could have progressed his complaint but did not do so. While we recognise this may be disappointing for Mr F, it is important we consider and act within the law. We hope our report reassures Mr F that we have carefully considered the reasons for delay in bringing his complaint to us.