7. 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 are good reasons to do so. When considering whether there are good reasons to put the time limit to one side, we look at how long it took the organisation to respond to the complaint and any personal circumstances that reasonably explain any delays.
8. We have discussed the time limit with Mrs Y to understand the reasons why she could bring the complaint to us sooner. We have considered the time the Trust took to respond to her complaint and any personal circumstances that could have delayed approaching us sooner. For the reasons outlined below, we have not seen good reason to put the time limit to one side for this complaint.
9. When we consider the time limit, we first establish when the person most likely first became aware of the problem. We call this the ‘date of knowledge’. For Mrs Y’s complaint, we consider Mr L and his family became aware of the problems on the following dates:
• Data breach on discharge letter in April 2019: we consider both Mr L and Mrs Y were aware of this at the time it happened. This is evidenced in Mrs Y’s complaint to the Trust, dated 1 October 2024, and her communication with our service. The date of knowledge is April 2019.
• Data breach on discharge letter in July 2019: though there is little evidence as to precisely when the family became aware of this, there is no claim of a delay. We consider it is more likely than not Mrs Y was aware of this problem when receiving the discharge letter in July 2019. The date of knowledge is July 2019.
• Cancellation of gallbladder surgery and patient mix-up in July 2019: Mrs Y explained to us she raised this issue at the time it happened, which means she was aware of this at the time. The date of knowledge is July 2019.
• Keyhole surgery in December 2019 and onward referral: Mr L and Mrs Y were aware at the time of the events that the keyhole surgery had failed. It is difficult to know precisely when the family realised there had been no onward referral due to the passage of time and there being no contemporaneous record of when this happened. It is reasonable to assume, however, it would have taken a couple of months to realise no contact had been made from the second Trust. Dates of knowledge are December 2019 for the surgery, and approximately March 2020 for becoming aware there had been no communication regarding the onward referral.
10. Mrs Y approached our service on 7 March 2025. This means the complaint came to us between five years and five years and 11 months outside the 12-month time limit. We, therefore, considered whether there were good reasons for this delay that mean should put the time limit to one side.
11. We have considered the time taken for the Trust to respond to Mrs Y’s complaint. She complained to the Trust on 1 October 2024, and it issued its final response on 12 February 2025. She then promptly approached our service. We have seen no unreasonable delay between October 2024 and March 2025, and we consider this period is fully explained by the Trust’s complaint handling.
12. Although the period between 1 October 2024 and March 2025 is explained by complaint handling, there is still a long delay of approximately five years between these events occurring and Mrs Y raising a formal complaint. Due to how far outside the time limit Mrs Y brought these issues to our service, we would need to see compelling reasons for the delay.
13. We asked Mrs Y about this delay. She explained they had raised the complaint verbally with the Trust whilst Mr L was still in hospital in 2019, but he did not want to make a written complaint. She told us this was because Mr L was very afraid that a written complaint may lead to mistreatment if he needed further care, and he decided not to pursue the complaint further. She added that whilst the events at the Trust were ongoing, they did not realise the full implications and the impact this would have on Mr L’s health.
14. We understand and empathise with the concerns Mr L had at this time. It can be very worrying for patients who may be vulnerable and requiring care to raise concerns if they fear being treated differently due to raising a complaint. Whilst this should never happen, we can understand why some patients find this anxiety provoking. We can also understand that this could cause some minor delay in raising the complaint. That said, his care had been transferred to a different Trust from December 2019, which mitigated this concern. Furthermore, the delay in bringing this complaint to us is so extensive that we cannot reasonably conclude this anxiety was a good reason to delay raising a complaint for a period of five years.
15. We also recognise Mr L and Mrs Y may not have been aware of the full health implications of the Trust’s actions until later. The law does not say a complaint must be made within a year of a person realising the full extent of a problem. Rather, it says a complaint must be made within a year of becoming aware of the problem. Mr L and his family were aware of these matters at the time they occurred, and Mrs Y’s account is that Mr L was in ‘agony’ at this time. We are satisfied the family was reasonably aware something may have gone wrong and that this was having a significant impact on Mr L at the time of the events, even if the full extent of the impact was not yet known.
16. We have also taken on board the fact that Mr L was the main carer for his wife, who has Parkinson’s disease, during this time. We recognise this could cause some delay in raising a complaint due to having to prioritise his wife’s care. That said, we cannot reasonably conclude this explains a delay of more than five years.
17. In conclusion, the delay in bringing this complaint to us is so extensive that there are very few circumstances that would make it reasonable for us to put the time limit to one side. We would need to see evidence that Mr L was significantly incapacitated, or similar, and unable to raise a complaint sooner. There is no evidence or indication this was ever the case; rather, his sister has been clear that not raising a complaint was a decision made by Mr L at that time. He later changed his mind when receiving care in 2023. Whilst we empathise with the reasons why he made this choice, we cannot reasonably conclude this is sufficient reason to put the time limit to one side.
18. We recognise how distressing these events were for Mr L and his family. Our decision in no ways detracts from this. We cannot consider these matters further due to the significant delay in approaching our service.