Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust

4. Mr L complains about the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). Specifically, he says the Trust did not provide correct/safe ear plugs and fitted during a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan in May 2024.  Mr L also raises concerns about the Trust’s complaint response and handling.

5. Mr L says the protective earplugs that were provided were not safe/appropriate. He says the noise from the MRI scan has exacerbated his tinnitus. He says this unbearable and is now affecting his mental health.

6. As outcome to his complaint, Mr L seeks the following:

• An acknowledgement of failings • He would like evidence of service improvements • An independent investigation into the Trust’s actions • The Trust’s response to have a scientific approach • The Trust should agree they lack testing equipment for measuring the volume of tinnitus • The Trust should promote prominently in the media the dangers to hearing of noise and the methods to protect a person’s hearing • A financial remedy to recognise his experience

7. Mr L complains the Trust did not provide correct/safe ear plugs during an MRI scan in May 2024. An MRI scan is a non-invasive medical imaging technique that uses strong magnetic fields to create detailed images of the organs and tissues inside the body.

8. Mr L says the protective earplugs that were provided were not safe or appropriate. He says the noise from the MRI scan has exacerbated his tinnitus. Tinnitus is a condition where you hear noises which do not come from an outside source, such as ringing or buzzing. Mr L says this is unbearable and is now affecting his mental health.

9. Mr L has seen a clinician at the Trust after the MRI scan to further investigate his worsening of his tinnitus. He says the Trust assessed him and provided a hearing aid.

11. We contacted Mr L on 5, 13, 14, 15, 16,19, 20, 22, 26, 27, 28, 30 of January and 2, 4, 9, 11, 12, and 18 February 2026 to confirm his complaint and the outcomes he is seeking.

12. Over the course of our conversations, Mr L explained he is a full-time carer and as such is unable to confirm when he is and isn’t available. In lieu of this, we advised Mr L he could seek the support of an advocacy to assist in pursing his complaint. We also provided Mr L with our availability times in advance in order to allow him the opportunity to choose a call time which would suit his schedule.

13. During these conversations we explained to Mr L how we would investigate his complaint, in particular that we would consider the standards and guidance around ear protection in an MRI scan and how this compared to what happened in his case. We explained that if we identified a failing in the Trust’s approach around ear protection, we would consider whether available research or guidance supports a link between his claimed failing and a worsening of tinnitus. If we were able to find a link, we would then consider what would be a proportionate remedy to put things right for Mr L. We have provided Mr L with information on what we can and cannot recommend as outcomes to our investigations.

14. We also advised Mr L that our summaries are intended to be brief and proportionate, and to capture the main points of a complaint within the framework of our complaint process.

15. Mr L has repeatedly asked us to include additional points in the scope and has made it clear he will not agree with our summary of his complaint unless it includes these additional matters. Many of the additional points Mr L wants us to include are outcomes we cannot achieve for him, and we have explained the reasons for this during our conversations.

16. Despite several discussions, Mr L did not agree with our complaint summary. This means we have been unable to confirm Mr L’s complaint including the outcomes he is seeking. As we cannot reach an agreement on how to proceed, we do not consider an investigation would be practical or that it would reach a satisfactory conclusion for Mr L.

17. In conclusion, we have tried over a prolonged period to agree a summary of Mr L’s complaint with him. We cannot keep a case open indefinitely where there is a disagreement on how to proceed and therefore, we have decided to close Mr L’s case.

1. We are sorry to learn of Mr L’s dissatisfaction following his experience with Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). We acknowledge the difficult circumstances around this complaint, and the impact this had on Mr L.

2. We have unfortunately not been able to consider Mr L’s complaint about the Trust. We have decided we will not investigate this complaint further.

3. We have explained the reasons for our decision below.