Barts Health NHS Trust

6. Mr D complains that the Trust did not offer an adequate remedy to recognise the distress caused by the loss of his father’s hearing aids while his father was an inpatient at a hospital within the Trust.

7. He also complains that the Trust handled his request for reimbursement poorly, including by providing unclear information, delaying its responses, and raising expectations that reimbursement would be made before later advising that this would not be possible. He says these events caused him distress and the incorrect information affected his decision-making on when to buy replacement hearing aids.

8. Mr D considers the £500 discretionary payment offered by the Trust to be inadequate and seeks a greater financial remedy.

9. Mr D’s father was under the Trust’s care from 6 April 2025. During his admission, his hearing aids were lost. The Trust accepted responsibility for the loss and apologised.

10. Mr D raised a formal complaint with the Trust in late April, and he provided an original invoice and a quotation for replacement. In early June, the Trust told Mr D that the invoice and quotation had been forwarded to its operations team so that reimbursement of the full cost of replacement hearing aids could be arranged.

11. Mr D’s father died in late June.

12. In July, the Trust advised that reimbursement would not be made because replacement hearing aids were no longer required. The Trust apologised for the handling of the reimbursement process. It offered a discretionary payment of £500 to recognise the distress caused.

15. Before we decide if we should investigate a complaint in more detail, we look at a few different factors. We look at whether what happened had a negative impact on the person in question. If we think it did, we will go on to consider what, if anything, the Trust has done to try to put things right.

16. We also consider whether we can achieve a meaningful outcome for the person who made the complaint.

17. Mr D told us that the loss of the hearing aids caused significant distress to his father, who relied on them to communicate, and to Mr D in turn. We recognise how distressing it would have been for Mr D to see his father struggle to communicate in the final months of his life. He told us that had he known he would not be reimbursed he would have purchased replacement hearing aids without waiting.

18. The Trust initially advised that it would reimburse the full cost of replacement hearing aids. It later clarified that reimbursement was subject to its finance processes and could only be made if replacement hearing aids were purchased. By the time this position was clarified, Mr D’s father had died and replacement hearing aids were no longer required

19. We recognise that this sequence of events left Mr D feeling that the Trust had avoided financial responsibility because of the timing of his father’s death, and that this added to his distress and sense of unfairness.

20. Our Complaint Standards set out that where something has gone wrong, organisations should identify suitable ways to put things right. They should identify the impact on the person involved: both of the event itself and of making the complaint. They should apologise and put the person back in the position they would have been in had the failing not occurred.

21. In this case, that meant the Trust should have reimbursed the cost of replacement hearing aids. It initially offered to do this, but evidently, something went wrong. At the time it made the offer, the replacement hearing aids had not been bought so it was not in a position to provide reimbursement.

22. Managing Public Money guides organisations on how to safeguard public funds. It says financial remedies should not give the recipient a financial advantage. It was, therefore, not appropriate for the Trust to offer to pay for the hearing aids up front as it had no assurance that a like-for-like pair would be purchased, nor how much they would cost. It should have only reimbursed them once purchased.

23. Mr D said the change in the Trust’s position caused him distress and uncertainty, and resulted in a lost opportunity to make an informed decision at the time. He explained that he had relied on the Trust’s initial advice when deciding not to pursue replacement hearing aids sooner, and that the clarification came at a point when it was no longer possible for him to act on it. He also said that delays and poor expectation management in the handling of his complaint added to that distress and frustration.

24. We recognise that the Trust’s incorrect offer of reimbursement may have affected Mr D’s decision-making about when to buy the hearing aids. We know from what he has told us that purchase of replacement hearing aids was not dependent on the reimbursement – he said he could have got the money together but did not do so while he awaited reimbursement. We consider that it was reasonable for Mr D to rely on the incorrect information to a point, and to await the money before buying the hearing aids.

25. However, by the time the Trust wrote to Mr D indicating that reimbursement would be made, Mr D’s father had already been without his hearing aids for almost two months – the majority of the total period he was without them. On the evidence available to us, the Trust’s later incorrect communication about reimbursement cannot explain why the hearing aids were not purchased during that period. During that period, up‑front payment was not guaranteed.

26. It is of course incredibly unfortunate that the hearing aids were lost. We have no doubt that this made life difficult for Mr D’s father and was deeply upsetting for Mr D, in turn. Had Mr D’s father lived and replacement hearing aids been purchased, we would have expected the Trust to compensate him for the cost of the hearing aids. However, this did not happen, and reimbursement for the cost of replacement hearing aids would therefore not be appropriate. The unfortunate reality in situations like this is that the owner of the property (or someone on their behalf) must buy a replacement, if needed, and then await reimbursement.

27. That is not to say that Mr D did not suffer an injustice here. We think he did. We have no doubt that seeing his father struggle to communicate was deeply upsetting for Mr D. We are also confident that the Trust’s incorrect position on the reimbursement has been incredibly frustrating for him.

28. As already stated, by the time Mr D’s father died, the Trust could no longer reasonably offer to pay back the cost of the hearing aids, because sadly, they were no longer needed. Instead, it should have considered alternative forms of remedy for the distress caused by the loss of the hearing aids and the frustration by the poor handling of the complaint.

29. The Trust accepted responsibility for the loss of the hearing aids and acknowledged that it had given Mr D incorrect information about its reimbursement processes and that there were delays and confusion in how the matter was handled. The Trust offered a discretionary payment of £500 to recognise the distress caused.

30. It did not explain how it reached that figure, so we compared it to what we think would have been reasonable in the circumstances, by using our Severity of Injustice scale. The injustice to Mr D likely falls into the upper end of Level 2 of our scale for the emotional and bereavement impact Mr D suffered. This tends to result in us recommending a financial remedy of up to £550.

31. We recognise that Mr D experienced a real injustice here, and that seeing his father struggle to communicate was deeply upsetting. We also understand that the way the matter was handled added to the distress at an already difficult time. We have carefully considered whether further investigation would be likely to lead to a more meaningful outcome for him, and we do not consider that it would. For that reason, we will not take this complaint forward for further consideration.

1. We have carefully considered Mr D’s complaint about Barts Health NHS Trust (the Trust).

2. We consider that the Trust has already done enough to put right the impact of these events on Mr D.

3. We have, therefore, decided not to investigate in more detail or take any further action.

4. We recognise that the loss of his father’s hearing aids caused a great deal of difficulty for Mr D at an already distressing time, and that the subsequent handling of his complaint added to this.

5. We set out below why we consider a detailed investigation would not be likely to achieve a more meaningful outcome for Mr D.